Delhi High Court
Naveen Singh vs The State on 7 August, 2018
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07.08.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 917/2018
NAVEEN SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Rana Kunal and Mr.Sanjeev Malik,
Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP with SI Jitendra
Negi, P.S.Neb Sarai.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
07.08.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 146/2018 under
Section 376/506/336 IPC Police Station Neb Sarai. As per the
allegations in the FIR, petitioner is alleged to have committed the
offence of rape on the prosecutrix several years prior to the lodging of
the FIR and is alleged to have repeated the same several times. As per
the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the last time the
offence is alleged to have been committed was six months prior to
registration of the FIR. It is further alleged that on 30.03.2018 when
the prosecutrix along with her family was travelling to Shirdi the
petitioner came to the house of the prosecutrix, quarrelled with her
mother-in-law who was alone at home and thereafter fired some shots
at the house. When her mother-in-law confronted the petitioner he is
alleged to have quarrelled with her once again and thereafter left.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. He submits that there is an unexplained
delay in lodging of the FIR and there is no material to substantiate that
there was ever any physical relation between the petitioner and the
prosecutrix. He further submits that as per the complaint, the
petitioner is not alleged to have fired at anyone but is alleged to have
fired shots at the house.
3. Petitioner was granted interim protection by order dated
24.04.2018 subject to his joining investigation.
4. Learned APP under instructions from the IO submits that the
petitioner did join investigation and the investigation is complete and
the State is in the process of filing the final report.
5. Without commenting on the merits of the case, on perusal of
the records, I am of the view that the petitioner has been able to make
out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest,
petitioner shall be released on bail by the IO/arresting officer/SHO
concerned, on petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the SHO/IO/Arresting Officer. Petitioner shall not do anything which
may prejudice either the investigation, trial or the prosecution
witnesses. Petitioner shall not make any endeavour to contact the
prosecutrix or her family. Petitioner shall not leave the country
without the permission of the Trial Court.
6. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
7. Order Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 07, 2018
rk
