Vicky Singh vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1190 Del

$-10
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    DECIDED ON : 15th FEBRUARY, 2016

+                      BAIL APPLN. 1869/2015

      VICKY SINGH                                             ..... Petitioner

                             Through :    Mr.S.K.Gandhi, Advocate.


                             versus

      STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.                    ..... Respondents

                             Through :    Mr.Amit Gupta, APP with SI
                                          Himanshu Balyan.
                                          Mr.C.M.Sharma, Advocate with
                                          Mr.Sanjay, Advocate for R2.

          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438

Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.314/2013 registered under Sections

420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC at PS Adarsh Nagar. Status report is on

record.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the

counsel for the complainant and have examined the file. The petitioner is

facing trial in case FIR No. 314/2013 and FIR No.111/2013. On

04.12.2012, both the parties amicably settled the dispute in Mediation

Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The petitioner undertook to pay `70 lacs to

the complainant of FIR No. 111/2013 and `75 lacs to the complainant of

FIR No. 314/2013. He was admitted to bail vide order dated 09.12.2014.

However, the petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions of

the settlement and vide an order dated 03.06.2015, the bail granted to the

accused / petitioner vide order dated 09.12.2014 was cancelled. He was

directed to surrender before the regular Court. Today, counsel for the

petitioner was specifically asked if the petitioner has surrendered in

compliance of the said order to which he replied in the negative.

3. The petitioner filed Crl.M.C.2528/2015,

Crl.M.A.Nos.8934/2015 and 8935/2015 before this Court. After some

hearing, it was withdrawn with liberty to have recourse in accordance with

law on 17.06.2015. It is relevant to note that the petitioner had also filed

Crl.Rev.P.360/2015 and Crl.M.A.Nos.9029-30/2015 which was

withdrawn on 01.07.2015 by him with liberty to approach the Trial Court.

4. Since the petitioner has not complied with the terms and

conditions arrived at with the complainant and has not paid any amount

till date apparently he deserves no relief. It is informed that proceedings

under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against him. Learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor further informs that the property in question was

mortgaged with three different banks detailed in the status report to avail

various loans.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence and serious allegations

against the petitioner, it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail and it is

dismissed.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

FEBRUARY 15, 2016 / tr