Vijay Kumari vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 706 Del

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of Decision: January 27, 2015

+     BAIL APPLN. 155/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.1102/2015
      VIJAY KUMARI                                       ..... Petitioner
                         Through:      Mr. Vimal Puggal, Advocate

                         versus

      THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI        ..... Respondent
                   Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
                             Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                             State

+     BAIL APPLN. 167/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.1193/2015
      NITIN VERMA                                        ..... Petitioner
                         Through:      Mr. Vimal Puggal, Advocate

                         versus

      THE STATE                                           ..... Respondent
                         Through:      Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
                                       Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                                       State

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

In the above captioned two applications, petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 7/2015, under Sections 448/380/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Moti Nagar, New Delhi.

Bail Applications155/2015 & 167/2015 Page 1 Petitioners are the mother and son who are accused of forcibly tress passing in the property of the complainant/ first-informant and of committing theft.

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner- Vijay Kumari is a lady and petitioner- Nitin Verma is studying law and they were forcibly dispossessed from the premises in question and the dispute between the parties is a property dispute regarding which civil litigation is already pending. Attention of this Court was drawn to the photograph (Annexure-F) placed on record to point out that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are patently false and so, petitioners deserve concession of pre-arrest bail.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR in question, material on record and the photograph (Annexure-F), I find that the allegations levelled against petitioners are of serious nature. During the course of hearing, nothing was brought to the notice of the court which could show that petitioners were forcibly dispossessed from the property in question. The complaint on 15th December, 2013 (Annexure-C) made by petitioners to the local police appears to be an afterthought. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners and the role attributed, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

Petitioners' applications are dismissed while refraining to comment upon the merits lest it may prejudice petitioners as and when they seek regular bail.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 27, 2015 r

Bail Applications155/2015 & 167/2015 Page 2