Manoj vs The State
2018 Latest Caselaw 6081 Del

$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Judgment delivered on: 05.10.2018

+      BAIL APPLN. 1010/2018
       MANOJ                                                         ..... Petitioner

                                    versus

       THE STATE                                                   ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner :         Ms.Sanobar Ali, Advocate

For the Respondent:          Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for the State

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                JUDGMENT

05.10.2018

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.102/2018, under Section 380 IPC, registered at New Ashok Nagar.

2. The allegations against the petitioner made by the prosecutrix in the FIR are that she suspects that the petitioner who is her husband had stolen Rs.25,000/- and a gold chain and has handed over the same to the co- accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no material to connect the petitioner with the subject offence. He submits that the complaint is an offshoot of a

matrimonial dispute.

4. Petitioner was granted interim protection, subject to joining investigation by order dated 3rd May, 2018.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State informs that petitioner did joined investigation, investigation has been concluded and charge-sheet is being finalised for being filed in the Court.

6. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail 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 concerned. Petitioner shall not do anything that may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.

8. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

9. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J OCTOBER 05, 2018 'hkaur'