Delhi High Court
Umesh Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 5 December, 2016
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order : December 05, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 2418/2016
UMESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chirag Mudgal, Mr. Abhinav
Tyagi, Advocates
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, with Sub-
Inspector Dinesh, Police Station
Ranhola, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
% 05.12.2016
P.S. TEJI, J. (ORAL)
1. By this application filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., the
petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR
No.0286/2016 under Section 354-D/509 of IPC and Section 12 of
POCSO Act, at Police Station Ranhola, Delhi.
2. The present case is registered on the complaint of one Ajay
Jaiswal, stating therein that the petitioner had molested and hurled
filthy language to his daughter Jhanvi (aged 7 years).
3. The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail which was
rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated
25.10.2016 and 10.11.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge without considering the report of
the Investigating Officer dated 05.11.2016 to the effect that "alleged
Umesh and his father have been examined in the present case. But
they have denied the allegations leveled upon them."
4. It is further contention of the petitioner that on a query from the
learned Additional Sessions Judge the investigating officer has replied
that there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the present
accused as he has joined the investigation, but still the anticipatory
bail application of the petitioner was rejected and there is no such
observation in the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge.
5. Sub-Inspector Dinesh, investigating officer of this case is
present in court and informed this court that the petitioner has joined
the investigation and he is not required for the purpose of custodial
interrogation.
6. Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State submits that the petitioner is charged with the offence punishable
under Section 354-D/509 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, and
his two anticipatory bail applications have already been declined by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
7. After hearing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner
as well as having gone through the contents of the petition and the
impugned order, it is an admitted fact that the FIR of this case was
registered on 12.04.2016, and the anticipatory bail applications of the
petitioner were rejected by the court below vide order dated
25.10.2016 and 10.11.2016.
8. After careful scrutiny of the case and the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court observes that the
petitioner has joined the investigation and there is no averment made
on behalf of the State that the petitioner is required for custodial
interrogation or that the petitioner has tried to tamper with the
evidence.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present
case, petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when
directed by the investigating officer and in the event of arrest, the
petitioner - Umesh Kumar be released on bail subject to his furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
10. The petitioner is directed not to tamper with the evidence, not to
influence the prosecution witnesses and shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the Court concerned.
11. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that
anything observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on
the merits of the case during trial.
12. With aforesaid directions, the present application stands
disposed of.
Dasti.
P.S.TEJI, J
DECEMBER 05, 2016
pkb
