Arun Kumar vs State (Nct) Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 6632 Del

$~39

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Date of Decision: September 04, 2015

+      BAIL APPLN. 1852/15 & Crl.M.(B).7684/15, Crl.M.A.12915/15
       ARUN KUMAR                                         ..... Petitioner
                            Through:   Mr. Ajit Singh and Mr. Shashi
                                       Ranjan, Advocates

                   versus

       STATE (NCT) OF DELHI                               ..... Respondent
                      Through:         Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional
                                       Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                                       State with Inspector Pankaj
                                       Sharma
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.21/2015 under Sections 7/13 of The Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420/467/468/472/ 120-B of IPC while claiming to be innocent.

At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the signatures on the cheque in question purportedly to be of petitioner are forged and even on the alleged settlement, the signatures of petitioner are forged and he is sought to be falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner has no connection with this case and petitioner is a court employee, who claims to be 8th Pass and so, he deserves bail as he

BAIL APPLN. 1852/15 Page 1 is ready to join the investigation of this case as and when directed.

Notice.

Ms.Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for respondent-State and submits that petitioner is absconding and he had forged the appointment letter and had signed the settlement and has later on backed out to pay and in lieu of the amount taken, he had sought to return it by way of a cheque of `6.50 lac which had bounced and so, for effective investigation of the FIR in question, custodial interrogation of petitioner is required to bring out the truth.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR in question and the material on record, I find that the gravity of the offence is such which dissuades this Court to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner.

Consequently, these applications dismissed while refraining to comment upon merits of this case lest it may prejudice petitioner when he seeks regular bail.

These three applications are accordingly disposed of.

                                                          (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                             JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 04, 2015
s




BAIL APPLN. 1852/15                                                     Page 2