Deepak Gautam vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 2604 Del

*             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

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

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