Yogesh Kumar v. State

1. By these two petitions, the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 304/2017 under Section 377 IPG and Sections 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences in short 'POCSO' Act registered atPS HauzKhas.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the main accused BAIL APPLN.3021/2018 page 1 of[3] 2019:DHC:7368 ■> Nikhil Arya has already been granted anticipatory bail as during the course of investigation, the CCTV footage showed contrary to the version of the complainant and in any case the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in Bail Appl. 3021/2018 have been kept in coloumn-11 without arrest and name of the petitioner No. 4 surfaced only in the second supplementary list who has also not been arrested before filing of the Supplementary charge sheet. Name of Yogesh Kumar, the petitioner in Bail Appl. 721/2019 has only surfaced in the first supplementary charge sheet and he has also been charge-sheeted without arrest.

3. In the complaint resulting in registration of the above noted FIR victim alleged that on the intervening night of August, 2017 at about 12:50 AM he was sexually assaulted by Nikhil Arya who brushed his legs against the hips of the complainant. When he went to lodge a complaint at PS Hauz Khas due to pressure of accused Rampal, Pradeep Kumar, Subhash Chander, Bhupesh Kumar and Yogesh Kumar the matter was compromised in the presence ofhis mother and sister. As a compromise was arrived at, no DD entry was lodged.

4. In the FIR complainant also alleged that on 2^^ September, 2017 between 11:00 AM to 12 Noon when he went to the toilet, Nikhil Arya was already present there and he pressed his mouth and committed wrong act with the complainant. However, the complainant was rusticated from the Gurukul on the allegation of theft.

5. As per the medical examination report of the complainant "insertion of penis or penis like object in the complainant could not be ruled out" however from the CCTV footage of the incident recovered it was revealed BAILAPPLN. 3021/2018 that on 2"^^ September,2017 at around 11:30 AM the victim had entered the toilet, where other students and persons are also seen using the toilet, however, Nikhil Arya was not there and his presence was found in the verandah at a considerable distance. He had entered the office at 10:55 AM and left at 11:47 AM.In view ofthe fact that the presence ofNikhil Arya was not fortified as alleged by the complainant even he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

6. Considering the nature ofallegation and the evidence which has come during the course of investigation, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest the petitioners be released on bail on their fumishing a personal bond in the sum of ?25,000/- with one surety bond of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO concemed/concemed Metropolitan Magistrate, further subject to the condition thatthe petitioners willjoin the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and in case ofchange ofresidential address the same will be intimated to the Court coneemed by way ofan affidavit.

7. Petitions are disposed of.

8. Order dasti. — MUKTA GUPTA,J. APRIL 09,2019 'yo' BAIL APPLN.3021/2018 page3of[3]