* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail App.No. 1631/2011
Date of Decision : 20.04.2012
DEEPAK GAUTAM ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Counsel (name not
given)
Versus
STATE ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP
Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Adv.
for the complainant
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This is a petition for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.384/2011 under Section 380/448/411/468/471/120-B IPC registered by PS: Sangam Vihar, Delhi.
2. The case of the Prosecution is that the complainant, Ramender Kumar, lodged a complaint that he is the owner of House No.E-6A/231, Sangam Vihar and he used to have a hall at the Ground Floor of his house for storing pickles and keeping the records of his wife pertaining to Anganwadi. The house had two rooms on the First Floor and the complainant's Bail App.1631/2011 Page 1 of 3 nephew, Aakensh was living in one of the said rooms. On 7.8.2011, Aakensh had gone to Goverdhan for pilgrimage and had not returned by the night. On the intervening night, that is, 7/8th August, 2011, some people barged into the house and removed 45 canes of pickle and almirah containing the record of Anganwadi, with an intent to grab the house. On 8.8.2011, two persons, namely, Prem Chand and Deepak told the complainant that the house had been sold to Prem Chand for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and they also threatened the complainant of dire consequences in case he contested the same. Thus, Prem Chand and Deepak were alleged to have not only stolen the articles belonging to the complainant's wife but also tried to create documents claiming the ownership of the property in question. On the basis of these facts, the complaint was lodged.
3. Deepak, the petitioner herein, was given protection against his arrest, with the direction that he shall join the investigation. However, it has been noticed, as urged by the learned APP, that the petitioner has not been joining the investigation and has been avoiding the same. In this regard, the learned APP has contended that the petitioner did not Bail App.1631/2011 Page 2 of 3 appear before the Investigating Officer on 10.3.2011 and 9.4.2011, despite notices having been served upon him. On 19.4.2011, the petitioner's wife was served a notice and she informed telephonically that the petitioner will not appear as the matter is listed before the Court on 20.4.2012 and that they will wait for the outcome of the case. On the basis of this conduct, it has been contended that the petitioner has deliberately not been joining the investigation, with a view to create hurdles in reaching to the root of the matter.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through the record.
5. Not only the allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature, but also on account of the fact that the petitioner has not been cooperating with the Investigating Agency, he does not deserve to get the discretion of anticipatory bail in his favour.
6. Accordingly, I dismiss the bail application.
7. File be sent to the Record Room.
V.K. SHALI, J.
APRIL 20, 2012 tp Bail App.1631/2011 Page 3 of 3