Delhi High Court
Jitender vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 January, 2019
$~1 to 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.01.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 960/2018
JITENDER ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
+ BAIL APPLN. 1204/2018
RAJA ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
+ BAIL APPLN. 1208/2018
RAMESH CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
+ BAIL APPLN. 1229/2018
SONU ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Mr. Pawan Kumar and Ms.
Garima Verma, Advs.
For the Respondent : Ms. Kusum Dhalla, Addl. PP for the State with SI
Bharat Singh
BAIL APPLN. 960/2018 & OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS Page 1 of 3
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
15.01.2019
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in FIR No. 93/2018 under Sections
354/354-B/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at
Police Station Okhla Indl. Area.
2. Allegations in the FIR are that when the prosecutrix was in her
house, she heard some people making noise outside her house and when
she went out she saw that her nephew who had come to their house for
celebrating Holi was being beaten by the petitioners. When she intervened,
they misbehaved with her and are alleged to have torn her clothes and
paraded her naked on the street.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have
been falsely implicated as there was enmity between the parties. He further
submits that there is no evidence to substantiate the commission of the
offence.
4. By order dated 08.05.2018 in Bail Application No. 960/2018, order
dated 23.05.2018 in Bail Application No. 1204/2018 and 1208/2018 and
order dated 24.05.2018 in Bail Application No. 1229/2018, the petitioners
were respectively granted interim protection subject to their joining
investigation.
5. Learned Addl. PP for the State submits that the petitioners did join
the investigation and the investigation is now nearly complete and there is
no further necessity of the petitioners to join further investigation.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without
commenting on the merits of the case and also the fact that there is no
requirement of the custodial interrogation of the petitioners, I am satisfied
that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting
officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioners on bail on their furnishing a
bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each with one surety each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer/SHO
concerned.
8. It is directed that the petitioners shall not do anything that may
prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses. The petitioners shall
not contact the prosecutrix or her family members.
9. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 15, 2018
'rs'
