BAIL APPLN./322/2017 of DEEPAK @ BHOLA Vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
Parties
- +BAIL APPLN. 322/2017DEEPAK @ BHOLA (PETITIONER)
- THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1)
Statutes cited (2)
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. 322/2017DEEPAK @ BHOLA
..... PetitionerThrough :Mr. Abhishek Chauhan and AshutoshBhardwaj, Advs.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)..... RespondentThrough :Mr.AmitChadha, APPwithSIKaramvir PS Narela.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R R%22.02.2017
Crl. M.A.3160/2017 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 322/2017
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely
implicated. There was no previous litigation between petitioner andcomplainant. Only allegation against the petitioner is that he tried to takepossession of the plot of complainant.It is submitted that mother ofpetitioner has also filed writ petition apprehending the false implication ofpetitioner.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of
anticipatory bail to petitioner. It is submitted that FIR was registered on 19[th]November, 2015. Petitioner has successfully evaded the arrest for last morethan one year. Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been completed.Complainant has stated in the FIR that Petitioner and his brother hadtrespassed his plot and took away the bricks lying therein by putting them inJCB.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that brother ofpetitioner is BC of the area. Petitioner has also got previous involvementunder Sections 387/448/468/471/120B/392/394/397/302/34 IPC.
Keeping in mind the above facts, I am of the view that no case ismade out for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner.Application is dismissed.
FEBRUARY 22, 2017/dk
A.K. PATHAK, J.