New Delhi, Oct 25 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a history sheeter after it was claimed that the complaint filed against him was by a person who is allegedly habitual of filing frivolous complaints in order to extort money on the pretext of settlement.
“Though, it is not in dispute that petitioner has 31 cases on him but he was on bail when inflicted in the present case. Keeping in view the facts recorded above, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves bail,” said a single judge bench of the High Court presided by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait.
The court said that Rehan alias Gaonwala shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
During the course of hearing, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Hirein Sharma opposed the bail application filed by Rehan under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
“When he was on bail in another matter, petitioner committed offence involved in the present case. Thus, if he is released on bail, he may continue to extort money from innocent people,” the APP said.
However, the counsel for the petitioner told the court that the complainant is a habitual litigant and had filed false and frivolous complaints against the residents of vicinity for extorting money.
“Even the police have not registered any case,” Advocate Sufian Siddiqui, appearing for the petitioner said adding that he used to withdraw the said complaints after getting some amount from victims on the pretext of settlement.
When the court enquired the Investigating Officer (I/O) regarding the same, he stated that he (complainant) has published one newspaper and he made complaint sometimes regarding encroachment and sometimes regarding police functioning.
While granting bail to the petitioner, the court also directed him that he shall not directly or indirectly influence any witness or tamper the evidence.
“The Trial Court shall not get influenced by the observation made by this Court while passing the order,” the court said concluding its order.