Rahul Prasad v. State

$~13 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 2560/2015 RAHUL PRASAD ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Ojha and Mr.

Mukesh Misra, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Sudershan Joon, APP for State with SI Yogendra, P.S. Gulabi Bagh.

Mr.

Biram Singh, Adv.

for Complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 03.11.2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR has been filed after five years of the marriage. Petitioner had not demanded any dowry nor harassed the complainant. All the family members have been falsely named in the FIR. Allegations are general in nature. Learned APP for the State, who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant, submits that allegations in the FIR are serious in nature. Jewellery articles of the complainant were also taken by the petitioner which have not been returned. Specific role has been assigned to the petitioner and his relatives including his brothers and sister. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no jewellery articles

are lying with the petitioner and, in fact, complainant had taken the same with her. However, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, petitioner is willing to deposit `3 lacs with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks.

In the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is ordered that in case of arrest petitioner be released on bail, subject to his depositing `3 lacs with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks and also on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO of the concerned police station.

Bail application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

NOVEMBER 03, 2016 ga