Full Text
Translation output
Bail Appln. 1421/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 30, 2019
Date of Order: May 30, 2019
BAIL APPLN. 1421/2019
AMAN SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate
AMAN SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate
VERSUS
THE STATE .....Respondent
Through: Dr. M.P.singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
Through: Dr. M.P.singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 12070/2019 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.A. 12070/2019 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 1421/2019
Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 86/2019, under
Sections 376/354A/506 IPC and Sections 6/10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at police station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi while claiming to be innocent.
Petitioner’s counsel submits that the story putforth in the
FIR is concocted. Attention of this Court is drawn to the order
2019:DHC:2984 of 14th March, 2019 (Annexure-D) vide which bail has been granted to co-accused-Poonam. It is pointed out that in the aforesaid order, it is noted that petitioner was in illicit relationship with mother of the victim and attention of this Court is drawn to affidavit of Poonam (Annexure-G), the mother of victim and affidavit of one Reshma (Annexure-H) to point out that petitioner has been falsely implicated at the instance of father of victim. Attention of this Court is also drawn to conversation (Annexure-E) to point out that conversation between one Reshma and Rakesh reveals that there was a conspiracy to falsely implicate petitioner and co-accused
Poonam. So, it is submitted that petitioner deserves bail.
On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State refutes the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of petitioner and submits that offence committed by petitioner is of heinous nature and so, this application deserves dismissal.
Attention of this Court is also drawn to a copy of statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR of this case, statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., I find that petitioner is accused of committing offence, which is punishable under Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, which may extend to imprisonment for life.
The incident in question was reported on 26th February, 2019 and prior thereto also, petitioner had indulged in similar offence which went unreported. Refusal for medical examination is of
1st March, 2019 which by itself does not justify grant of bail to petitioner, as the allegations levelled against him are of heinous nature.
This application is accordingly dismissed while refraining to comment upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice petitioner at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 30, 2019 r
Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 86/2019, under
Sections 376/354A/506 IPC and Sections 6/10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at police station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi while claiming to be innocent.
Petitioner’s counsel submits that the story putforth in the
FIR is concocted. Attention of this Court is drawn to the order
2019:DHC:2984 of 14th March, 2019 (Annexure-D) vide which bail has been granted to co-accused-Poonam. It is pointed out that in the aforesaid order, it is noted that petitioner was in illicit relationship with mother of the victim and attention of this Court is drawn to affidavit of Poonam (Annexure-G), the mother of victim and affidavit of one Reshma (Annexure-H) to point out that petitioner has been falsely implicated at the instance of father of victim. Attention of this Court is also drawn to conversation (Annexure-E) to point out that conversation between one Reshma and Rakesh reveals that there was a conspiracy to falsely implicate petitioner and co-accused
Poonam. So, it is submitted that petitioner deserves bail.
On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State refutes the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of petitioner and submits that offence committed by petitioner is of heinous nature and so, this application deserves dismissal.
Attention of this Court is also drawn to a copy of statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR of this case, statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., I find that petitioner is accused of committing offence, which is punishable under Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, which may extend to imprisonment for life.
The incident in question was reported on 26th February, 2019 and prior thereto also, petitioner had indulged in similar offence which went unreported. Refusal for medical examination is of
1st March, 2019 which by itself does not justify grant of bail to petitioner, as the allegations levelled against him are of heinous nature.
This application is accordingly dismissed while refraining to comment upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice petitioner at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 30, 2019 r
JUDGMENT