ROSHINI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks anticipatory Bail in case FIR No. 558 of 2017 under Sections 328/307/34 of the IPC Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.

(2.) The petitioner is the sister of the mother-in-law of the complainant. The mother in law has expired. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner alongwith the husband of the complainant had administered bed bug repellent to her consequent to a quarrel that took place on account of the complainant having switched off the CCTV camera installed at the house of the complainant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as the CCTV footage clearly shows that the petitioner was not even present in the house and does not support the allegations made in the FIR and does corroborate the incident as narrated by the complainant in the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner does not even live with I the house of the complainant.