Former Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit’s son-in-law was on Thursday granted bail by a special court in a case of theft and misappropriation of his wife’s property.
The court said that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in further custody in view of the investigation being complete.
Special Judge Deepak Garg granted the relief to Syed Mohammad Imran on a personal bond of Rs two lakh and a surety of like amount, after noting that the accused was not required for further investigation in any manner.
The court, meanwhile, asked a woman, an accused in the case, to join the probe since she is abroad and fixed her anticipatory bail plea for hearing on December 17, directing that no coercive means be adopted against her till that period.
“At present, it would be suffice to say that nothing has been placed on record by the investigating agency to show that applicant Imran has any previous criminal antecedent ...
“Admittedly, he is not required for further investigation in any manner. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody any more... Both the sides (complainant and accused) are related to each other. There is no apprehension that accused may hamper the investigation or tamper with witnesses,” the court said.
Imran was arrested on November 10 from Bangalore and brought on transit remand, and police took his custody. He was later remanded in judicial custody.
Dikshit’s daughter Latika and Imran had got married in 1996, but were living separately for the last 10 months.
In her complaint filed in June, Latika had alleged that Imran’s attitude had changed towards her and had become aggressive and rude after her mother lost in the Delhi assembly polls.
Latika had alleged that Imran took away papers of a piece of land owned by her in Nainital, despite having been told not to do so in May.
According to the police, she also alleged that some of the belongings, kept at her Hailey Road house in central Delhi, had gone missing and whenever she asked for these, Imran was evasive. She also alleged that he took away jewellery and other expensive items from there.
Latika alleged that Imran’s co-accused, who was one of her female relatives, was “in connivance” with him, they said.
A case was registered against Imran under Sections 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 120 B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (destruction of evidence) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code and under 66 of the IT Act.
