Delhi High Court
Santosh vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 December, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on 29th November, 2017
Order pronounced on 6th December, 2017
+ BAIL APPLN. 2214/2017
SANTOSH ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan and Ms Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State
with SI Manisha Sharma, PS-Aman
Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By this application filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., the
applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 503/2017 under
Section 376/354D/506 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police
Station - Aman Vihar, Delhi.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that about one year prior
to the registration of the FIR in present case, the prosecutrix was
attending the classes for beauty parlour & sewing of clothes at
Mundka NGL and the applicant, who resides near her house used
to follow her on the pretext that he loves her which was objected
by the prosecutrix; that one day when the prosecutrix was out from
her house for some work, applicant met her and took her to Laxmi
Vihar Park, Prem Nagar-III, and committed rape upon her without
her consent and also threatened not to disclose else he would kill
Bail Appln. No. 2214/2017 Page 1 of 3
her and her brother; that applicant sexually assaulted the
complainant two to three times during the last one year; that on
03.05.2017, when the complainant was returning to her house,
applicant stopped her and attached with a blade on the right side
neck for which a separate FIR No. 119/2017 under Section
324/506/34 IPC was registered at the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is an
innocent boy and has been falsely implicated in the present case;
that the applicant and complainant are known to each other since
2016 and was in relationship, exchanged love letters and relied o
on photographs which are annexed with the application; that they
were willing to get married but when differences arose, the
complainant lodged a false and fabricated FIR against the
applicant; that no allegation of sexual assault has been made
against the applicant by the complainant in FIR No. 119/17 under
Section 324/506/34 registered at Police Station - Mundka, which
was lodged three days prior to registration of present FIR.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. Learned APP for State concedes that the applicant and the
complainant were known to each other and similar complaint has
already been lodged by the complainant since the applicant has
joined investigation and custodial interrogation is not required in
the matter and the chargesheet is likely to be filed shortly.
Bail Appln. No. 2214/2017 Page 2 of 3
6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the present
case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
applicant, subject to :-
i. his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
with one surety of the like amount subject the satisfaction of
Arresting Officer/SHO concerned;
ii. That the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and
make himself available for interrogation by police officer, as
and when required;
iii. That the applicant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction
of the NCT of Delhi;
iv. That the applicant shall not try to contact and influence the
complainant and other witnesses of the present case.
7. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything
observed in the present application shall not have any bearing on
the merits of the case during trial.
8. Application stands disposed of.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
DECEMBER 06, 2017
gr
