Full Judgement
Delhi High Court
Ramesh Bhardwaj vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through Sho on 14 May, 2019
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 14.05.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 575/2019
RAMESH BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State with
the Investigating Officer.
Mr. Amardeep, Advocate for the
complainant.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 37/2019, under Sections 342/323/354B/354/506/509/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Narela.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the husband of the prosecutrix had purchased a property through the petitioner, however, the registration of the documents was not got done despite taking money. It is contended that when the prosecutrix along with her husband had gone to ask the petitioner to register the plot or to refund
BAIL APPLN.575/2019 Page 1 of 3 the money they dragged her inside their house and locked the door and thereafter the petitioner along with his wife assaulted her. It is alleged that petitioner tore her clothes.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the subject FIR is an offshoot of a property dispute, which the complainant had raised with the petitioner. It is submitted that the property was purchased through the petitioner who was acting as a property broker and in case there was any dispute it was with the owner of the property.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the CCTV footage of the cameras installed in the neighbourhood do not support the case of the prosecution.
5. By order dated 07.03.2019, petitioner was granted interim protection subject to joining investigation.
6. Learned APP for the State, under instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that the petitioner has joined investigation. She further submits that the DVR was obtained from the neighbourhood and has been sent for forensic examination. She, however, further submits that since the petitioner has joined investigation and investigation qua the role of the petitioner is complete, there is no further requirement of the petitioner to join investigation.
BAIL APPLN.575/2019 Page 2 of 3
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- 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 the investigation, trial or prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall not contact the complainant or her family.
9. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY 14, 2019 st
BAIL APPLN.575/2019 Page 3 of 3
