RUNA RAJPUT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 27.07.2019 in Bail Application No.2278/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, MACT, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in FIR No.46/18, under Sections 170/420/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, PS: Crime Branch, Delhi, whereby the Sessions Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as noted by the Trial Court, is as under:

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a delay of almost one month in the lodging of the FIR, however, neither the complainant nor the police official gave any reason for the delay in registration of the FIR. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, though, she was working as a Consultant with the complainant, yet she has nothing to do with the purchase order as she left the job on 18.2.2016, much prior to the placing of the said order. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge also appreciated that the petitioner was having nothing in her possession, for the recovery whereof the custody of the petitioner may be required by the respondent. The petitioner is a young lady living separately from her husband. Some litigation is pending between them and due to this the husband of the petitioner misused her e-mail IDs to get her falsely implicated in the case. Even the SIM card and IP addresses used in commission of the said offences belong to her husband and she has been falsely implicated in the present case.