Delhi High Court
Manish vs State on 22 May, 2019
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.05.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 1113/2019
MANISH ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Sangwan, Adv.
For the Respondent : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP with ASI Krishna,
P.S.Mangol Puri.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.54/2019 under Section
376 IPC, Police Station Mangol Puri.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner and the
prosecutrix were neighbours and known to each other for over two
years. It is alleged that they wanted to get married and had not
informed their respective families about their relationship and the fact
that they wanted to get married.
3. It is further alleged that in August, 2017 the petitioner took the
prosecutrix to his house and forcibly made physical relationship and
also promised that he would marry her and thereafter it is alleged that
on the false pretext to marry they had physical relations several times.
It is further alleged that after about one year he left the petitioner,
changed his address and about 3-4 days prior to the making of the
complaint the prosecutrix came to know that he was getting engaged
to someone else because of which, it is alleged that, she even
consumed disinfectant and was admitted in hospital.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that the allegation is that the
relationship was established on a false pretext to marry, whereas there
is no material to show that either there was any physical relationship
or there was any promise to marry.
5. Learned counsel further submits that there is substantial delay
in lodging a complaint in as much as the allegation is that relationship
was established in August, 2017 and complaint is made in January,
2019 and even as per the allegations petitioner is alleged to have
shifted his residence over a year prior to the making of the complaint.
6. The petitioner has been in custody since 16.01.2019.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied
that petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
8. 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, 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 make
any endeavour to contact the prosecutrix or her family members.
Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the
Trial Court. Petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the IO, if
not already done so.
9. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 22, 2019
rk
