Delhi High Court
Daksh Gupta vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 15 March, 2018
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.03.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 192/2018
DAKSH GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Lokesh Kumar Mishra and Mr Himanshu
Sharma
For the Respondent : Ms Anita Abraham, Addl. PP for the State
Insp Malti Bana.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
15.03.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.355/2017
under Section 376 IPC & 6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station New
Ashok Nagar.
2. The subject FIR was registered on the allegation of the
prosecutrix that she is a permanent resident of Rajasthan and was
temporarily living with her aunt in Mayur Vihar, Phase-3, where she
used to sell Agarbati. It is alleged that one boy, namely, Ravi, allured
her and made physical relationships with her without her consent.
3. On return to her native place, she disclosed the incident to her
father, where after, the present complaint was lodged and FIR
registered. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted
and it was found that she was pregnant. Subsequently, a child has
been born. On 18.07.2017, the petitioner was arrested on the alleged
pointing out by the Prosecutrix and is in judicial custody since then.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated, as in the FIR, it is contended that the
offence has been committed by one Ravi, who is son of a Sikh, which
statement is reiterated in the statement given under Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Petitioner is not the son of a
Sikh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in her
testimony before the Trial Court, the prosecutrix has failed to identify
the petitioner. Rather in her testimony, she has testified that she had
pointed out the real accused Ravi to the Police during investigation;
however, the police arrested the petitioner.
6. Blood samples of the child born to the prosecutrix as well as the
accused were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for DNA
analysis.
7. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 13.03.2018
has been received, which opines that there is no match and it is
concluded that the child is not the biological child of the petitioner.
Original report of the FSL has been produced in Court by the
Investigating Officer. The same has been perused and returned to the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case, perusal of the
record shows that the petitioner has made out a fit case for grant of
bail. Subject to the 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 is admitted to Bail. The Petitioner shall
not do anything, which shall prejudice either the trial or the
prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall not attempt to contact the
prosecutrix or her family.
9. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 15, 2018
'Sn'
