Delhi High Court
Sohan Kumar @ Sonu Tomar vs The State on 3 July, 2018
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.07.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 1294/2018
SOHAN KUMAR @ SONU TOMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Gaurav Kochar and Mr Dollar Jain.
For the Respondent : Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for the State.
SI Mnisha, PS Hazarat Nizamuddin.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
03.07.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.255/2017 under Sections
354D/323/341 IPC & Section 12 of POCSO Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
been falsely implicated.
3. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner is alleged to
have stalked the complainant and followed her on the said date, i.e. on
07.11.2017 at about 5.15 in the evening.
4. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner followed her and
asked her to marry him. When she refused, she was beaten with a
stick and thereafter the petitioner ran away.
5. As per the statement given under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the complainant has stated that the
petitioner snatched her mobile phone and made a call to his own
number.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was
friendship between the petitioner as well as the complainant for the
last four years and the complaint has been lodged at the behest of her
parents. He further submits that the Call Details Record (CDR)
obtained by the Investigating Officer shows that even after the
incident as late 9 pm in the evening of 07.11.2017 and on the
following day, i.e. on 09.11.2017, there were calls made by the
complainant to the phone of the petitioner, lasting in one instance for
1105 seconds.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, under
instructions from the Investigating Officer, confirms that the mobile
phone of the complainant is with her and there is no complaint that the
said is in possession of the petitioner.
8. Petitioner has been in custody since 09.11.2017.
9. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case and without commenting on the merits of the case, perusal of
the record shows that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of
regular bail.
10. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted bail. Subject to petitioner
furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, the petitioner shall
be released on Bail, if not required in any other case. Further, it is
directed that the petitioner shall not do anything, which may prejudice
either the investigation or the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner
shall not make any endeavour to contact the complainant or her family
members.
11. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JULY 03, 2018
'Sn'
