BAIL APPLN./1185/2016 of KAUTILYA SHARMA Vs THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)
Parties
- End of picture text -----<br> (PETITIONER)
- THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 1185/2016KAUTILYA SHARMA
..... Petitioner
Through :Mr. Sameer Chandra, Adv. with Mr.Wiqar Ahmed, Mr. S. C. MohanMehata and Mr. Zubair Raza, Advs.Wiqar Ahmed, Mr. S. C. MohanMehata and Mr. Zubair Raza, Advs.
versus
THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)..... RespondentThrough :Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R%11.07.2016
Matter has been taken up today in view of notification no. 1078/G-4/Genl./DHC dated 6[th]July, 2016 of this Court.
Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for petitioner submitsthat petitioner has been falsely implicated.It is submitted that petitioner’scancelled cheques were used for obtaining loans for procuring mobile phoneswithout his consent and knowledge.It is further submitted that co-accusedMayank Singh Rawat and Santosh Chaudhary have already been released onbail.
Learned APP submits that petitioner is part of racket, which wasprocuring mobile phones, after obtaining loans on forged documents includingcheques. During the investigation three mobile phones have been recoveredfrom the co-accused. It is submitted that custodial interrogation is required,
inasmuch as, two more mobile phones have yet to be recovered.During theinvestigation co-accused Santosh Chaudhary and Mayank Singh Rawat havedisclosed the name of petitioner. However, petitioner’s cheques were used forobtaining loans, has to be investigated.
Keeping in mind the above facts, I am of the view that petitioner is notentitled to anticipatory bail.
Application is dismissed.
JULY 11, 2016/dk
A.K. PATHAK, J.