Sanjeev Dass vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner seeks anticipatory Bail in case FIR No. 384 of 2017 under Sections 452/354/506/509 of the IPC Police Station Pandav Nagar, Delhi.

The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant who resided as a tenant in the property was assaulted by the petitioner. It is alleged that the

complainant was in her house when she heard someone abusing from outside. On coming out, she found that the petitioner was hurling abuses and

when she confronted him and asked him not to abuse he got annoyed and pushed her on which she fell down. He is also to have threatened the

complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Further, he submits that admittedly, no injury has been

sustained by anyone and there is no enmity between the petitioner and complainant. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant has already

left the house and is no longer residing in the area.

By order dated 19.03.2018, interim protection was granted to the petitioner subject to petitioner joining investigation. It is informed by learned APP

that the petitioner did join investigation.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the merits of the case and on perusal of the records, I am

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

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. The

petitioner shall not do anything that may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.

The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master