BAIL APPLN./2267/2016 of TUSHAR GOYAL @ LALLA Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2017-12-11

Parties

End of picture text -----<br> (PETITIONER)
> picture [376 x 79] intentionally omitted <== (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

TEST.CAS./31/2003 of MOHINDER SINGH Vs THE STATE AC+ (2017)

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

Show all Arguments

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 2267/2016TUSHAR GOYAL @ LALLA..... PetitionerThroughMs. Meenakshi Kehi, Mr. TarunGomber and Mr. Gaurav Goswami,Advs.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)..... RespondentThroughMs. Manjeet Arya, APP for StateSI Laxman, PS GKMr. Rohit Kataria, Adv forComplainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R%11.12.2017

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner hadmade complaint on 18[th]October, 2016 at about 1:15 PM to the SHOof Police Station Greater Kailash-1 stating therein that cigarette,gutka, bidi etc. used to be sold at rehri near Delhi Municipality Schooland temple.It is further submitted that as counter blast to thecomplaint lodged by the petitioner, present FIR was got lodged on thesame day regarding alleged incident of 6[th]October, 2016.It issubmitted that there is delay of 12 days in lodging the FIR. It isfurther submitted that the complainant has falsely alleged that thepetitioner, who is son of landlord of her friend Pooja, caught hold ofher hand and told her that he wanted to be her friend. Pooja has notsupported this version.

Petitioner was granted interim protection vide order dated 7[th]December, 2016 which is still continuing.Petitioner is not requiredfor any further investigation.

Learned APP, who is assisted by learned counsel for thecomplainant, has opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.It is contended by that the matter was not reported earlier by thecomplainant as she was afraid of petitioner. Learned counsel for thecomplainant submits that threats are being extended by the petitioner.Learned APP submits the complaint regarding threats was not foundgenuine.

Keeping in mind the totality of circumstances, it is ordered thatin case of arrest, petitioner be released on anticipatory bail subject tohis furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/-(RupeesTwenty Five Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount tothe satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHOconcerned.

Bail application is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

DECEMBER 11, 2017

A.K. PATHAK, J