Lalit Singh Negi vs State
2018 Latest Caselaw 2390 Del

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                   Judgment delivered on: 17.04.2018

+      BAIL APPLN. 2478/2016
LALIT SINGH NEGI                                            ..... Petitioner
                           versus

STATE                                                    ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner   :     Mr Gurmehar Singh Sistani and Mr Samit Khosla
                           with petitioner in person.
For the Respondent   :     Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State.
                           SI Satish Kumar, PS Ambedkar Nagar.
                           Mr Vinod Dubey, Advocate for complainant.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                             JUDGMENT

17.04.2018

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.445/2016 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC, Police Station Ambedkar Nagar.

2. Parties were referred to Mediation; however, no settlement could be arrived at. Petitioner was granted interim protection on 02.12.2016 subject to joining investigation.

3. As per the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner did join investigation, as and when he was called upon to do so.

4. On 06.09.2017, this Court had recorded the contention of the complainant that she has received part of jewellery from the petitioner in the Police Station on 15.07.2017 and also a demand draft of Rs.70,000/-, however, a plea was raised that the entire jewellery has not been received, to which the petitioner contends that entire jewellery has been returned to the respondent.

5. Perusal of the record shows that petitioner has made out a case for anticipatory bail. No case is made out for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO, on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO.

6. The petitioner shall not do anything, which shall either prejudice the investigation or any of the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall join investigation, as and when so required by the Investigating Officer.

7. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.

8. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J APRIL 17, 2018/'Sn'