Delhi High Court
Gaurav Tuli vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 October, 2018
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:23.10.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 2816/2014
GAURAV TULI ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Manan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shivani
Kant, Mr. Shikhar Tandon, Ms. Rashi Rampal, Ms.
Akahksha Mehrotra, Ms. Komal and Mr. Mukul
Aggarwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State.
SI Pramod Kumar, PS Shalimar Bagh.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
23.10.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
BAIL APPLN. 2816/2014 & Crl.M.A.1894/2015 (for clarification
of order dated 12.01.2015), Crl.M.A.4333/2018 (for extension of
interim bail 16.12.2015)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.94/2013 under Section
376 (2)(G)/328/34 IPC, Police Station Shalimar Bagh.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner had
committed an offence of rape on prosecutrix by giving her an
intoxicant in a sweet. The allegations are that the prosecutrix was
taken by the co-accused to the shop of one of the co-accused where
the petitioner is alleged to have committed rape on her. Thereafter, it
is alleged that the petitioner had taken certain photographs which were
being used to force the prosecutrix into a physical relationship with
the petitioner.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
prosecutrix had made contradictory statements in her testimony before
the Trial Court and has twice taken a complete U-turn from the
allegations levelled. It is submitted that the allegations are that the
petitioner had threatened the prosecutrix and that is the reason that she
had resiled from her earlier testimony.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out that the
petitioner has been on interim bail since 16.12.2015 and the testimony
of the prosecutrix has already been recorded. He submits that there is
no possibility of petitioner now, in any manner, influencing the trial or
affecting the witnesses. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the co-accused has already been admitted to
regular bail.
5. Learned APP for the State, under instructions from the
Investigating Officer, submits that all the public witnesses have
already been examined and only formal/official witnesses remain to
be examined.
6. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the
petitioner has been on interim bail since 16.12.2015 and the testimony
of the prosecutrix and public witnesses have already been concluded, I
am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular
bail.
7. Accordingly, on 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. Petitioner shall not do anything, which may
prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall
not leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court.
8. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
9. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
OCTOBER 23, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
