Ajay Kumar vs State ( NCT Of Delhi)

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.355/2018 under Sections 451/506/34 IPC, PS Manogl Puri. Subsequently Sections 452 IPC and 30

Arms Act have been added. Allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner had gone into the shop of the complainant and thereafter threatened with

a weapon.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the CCTV footage which has been seized by the

prosecution clearly shows that the petitioner had not gone there with the intention to threaten the complainant rather the CCTV footage shows that the

petitioner had gone there as there was some dispute with regard to repayment of money of the petitioner which was to be repaid by the complainant

and subsequently some altercation took place and further shows that the petitioner was not the aggressor. Â

By order dated 04.05.2018, the petitioner was directed to join investigation. Learned counsel submits that the licensed revolver of the petitioner

along with arms license deposited with the Investigating Officer.

Learned APP confirms that the petitioner did join investigation as and when was required by the Investigating Officer.Â

Without commenting upon the merits of the case and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that

the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. 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. Â

The petitioner shall not do anything, which may prejudice either the investigation or the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall join investigation,

as and when so required by the Investigating Officer.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.