Delhi High Court
Ran Singh vs State on 31 October, 2018
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.10.2018
BAIL APPLN. 614/2018
RAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. D.K. Rai,
Mr. Upendra Kumar Nagar, Mr. Manish and Mr.
Ajay P. Tushir, Advs.
For the Respondent : Ms. Meenakshi Dahia, Addl. PP for the State with
Inspr. Pushp Lata, PS Prasad Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 31.10.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 108/2018
under Section 376 of the IPG registered at Police station Karol Bagh
(now transferred to Police Station Prasad Nagar).
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is, in fact,
a case of 'honey trap'. It is contended that the WhatsApp conversation
shows that the petitioner was lured by the complainant.
3. It is contended that as per the FIR, the allegations against the
petitioner are that the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the
petitioner to a hotel and thereafter it is alleged that the petitioner
indulged in forceful activity.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that on
registration of the FIR, a departmental inquiry was instituted as
petitioner is a Police Officer. On 17.05.2018 prosecutrix had
appeared before the Departmental Committee and gave her statement
in which she stated that the physical relation between the petitioner
and prosecutrix was with her consent. Later she realized her mistake
and went to the police station to lodge a complaint. It is stated by her
that she wanted to browbeat the petitioner.
5. Directions were issued on 09.08.2018 to the Investigating
Officer to verify the alleged statement given by the prosecutrix on
17.05.2018 before the Departmental Committee.
6. Learned Addl. PP, under instructions from the Investigating
Officer, submits that the statement is verified and there is nothing on
record to show that she retracted from her said statement.
7. The petitioner was granted interim protection on 20.03.2018,
subject to his joining investigation. Learned Addl. PP submits that the
petitioner did join the investigation as and when was required by the
Investigating Officer. She submits that investigation is complete and
the chargesheet is in the process of finalization and the same shall be
submitted in Court.
8. Without commenting upon the merits of the case and on perusal
of the records, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case
for grant of anticipatory bail.
9. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the
arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on his
furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating
Officer/SHO concerned.
10. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 31, 2018
'rs'
