Delhi High Court
Jatin Sethi vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 11 October, 2018
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:11.10.2018
+ Bail Application No.1995/2018
JATIN SETHI ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra & Mr. Himanshu
Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for the State with
SI Sangita Tiwari, PS Ghazipur.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
11.10.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. No.34174/2018
1. By this application, the petitioner seeks amendment of the
prayer clause to incorporate Section 328 IPC.
2. Learned counsel submits that initially the FIR was registered
only under Section 354A/354D/506 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act.
Subsequently during investigation in these proceedings, it was
informed that Section 328 IPC has been added.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is
allowed. Reference in the Prayer paragraph to the FIR shall read as
"under Section 354A/354D/506/328 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO
Act."
4. Application is allowed in the above terms
Bail Application No.1995/2018
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.380/2018 registered
under Sections 354A/354D/506/328 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO
Act, Police Station Ghazipur.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner was
known to the prosecutrix for over two years having been introduced
through a common friend. It is alleged that the petitioner initially
instigated and threatened her to start smoking and consume alcohol. It
is contended that the petitioner used to threaten her that in case she
would not smoke or take alcohol, he would cause harm to her as well
as to her brother.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. He submits that there is material inter
alia social media conversations between the parties where the
petitioner has been telling the prosecutrix not to consume alcohol etc.,
as the same is harmful to her. He submits that he has been falsely
implicated as there was constant demand for money from the
petitioner. It is informed that the petitioner is of a tender age of 21
years.
4. Learned APP for the State informs that investigation is
complete and charge sheet has been filed. He submits that the only
material against the petitioner is the statement of the prosecutrix and
her mother. On inquiry, he has informed that during investigation no
independent witness has stated anything incriminating against the
petitioner.
5. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.08.2018.
6. Without commenting on the merits of the case and on perusal of
the record, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for
grant of regular bail. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond
in the sum of Rs.15,000/- 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. The petitioner shall not do anything,
which may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.
Petitioner shall not contact the prosecutrix or her family.
7. The bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
8. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
OCTOBER 11, 2018/'AA'
