High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 05 DEL CK 0112

JYOTI SINGH vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ON

Delhi High Court · Decided on 10 May 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
BAIL APPLN. 1077 OF 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 346 words
1.

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.524/17 under Sections 420/406/34 IPC, Police Station Saidpur Badli. The allegations against the

petitioner are that the petitioner along with her husband has induced several persons in the locality to part with money. It is submitted that the

petitioner along with her husband had built up a reputation in the society and, as a result, members of the society trusted them and parted with

several lakhs of rupees. Suddenly, one day, they absconded from their residence and were not traceable.

2.

Learned APP for the State points out that apart from the complaint on which the subject FIR has been registered, there are several complaints

received from other members of the locality and they have come to know that, as of now, over Rs.40, 00,000/- has been borrowed in the above

fashion and the investigation is on to trace out further people who may have been cheated in similar fashion. It is submitted that the petitioner and

her husband had not only borrowed from several individuals but also borrowed in the name of running a chit fund and inducing several people to part

with their hard-earned money. One of the individuals had invested money for the purposes of marriage of the daughter.

3.

Learned APP for the State submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage and, keeping in view the facts of the case, custodial interrogation of

the petitioner is necessary.

4.

I have perused the records of the case, which reveal that there are several complaints against the petitioner of borrowing money from not only the

complainant in the FIR but several other people also. The petitioner thereafter absconded from their residence. Investigation is at a nascent stage. In

the facts of the case the demand for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, does not appear to be unjustified.

5.

Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.

6.

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.