Full Text
Translation output
a $-35,57&58 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.2756/2018 & Crl.M.A.47900/2018
BHARAT BHUSHAN OBERAI Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ashok Kapoor& Mr.A.K.
Mehta,Advs.
BAIL APPLN.2756/2018 & Crl.M.A.47900/2018
BHARAT BHUSHAN OBERAI Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ashok Kapoor& Mr.A.K.
Mehta,Advs.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NOT OF DELm Respondent
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal,APP for the State with SI Satender Kumar,PS
KNKMarg.
Mr.Vishesh Wadhwa,Adv.for complainant.
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal,APP for the State with SI Satender Kumar,PS
KNKMarg.
Mr.Vishesh Wadhwa,Adv.for complainant.
BAIL APPLN.2759/2018 & Crl.M.A.47926/2018
SUSmL KAPOOR Petitioner
SUSmL KAPOOR Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent KNKMarg.
BAIL APPLN.2762/2018 & Crl.M.A.47948/2018
SANJEEV KAPOOR Petitioner
SANJEEV KAPOOR Petitioner
VERSUS
BAIL APPLN.2756/2018& conn. page I of3
2018:DHC:8482 I V THE STATE OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent
KNK Marg.
2018:DHC:8482 I V THE STATE OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent
KNK Marg.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
04.12.2018 The allegations have been made againstthree petitioners herein in FIR no.407/2018 ofpolice station KN Katju Marg involving offences punishable under Sections 323/354/506/34 ofIndian Penal Code, 1860(IPG), the said
FIR having been registered on the statement of Varsha Oberoi,the wife of
Aman Kapoor,the petitioners Sanjeev Kapoor and Sushil Kapoor being his maternal uncle {Mama) and petitioner Bharat Bhushan Oberoi being his father (father-in-law to the complainant). It is alleged that all the three accused persons along with other relatives ofthe maternal family have been torturing the complainant for last some period,these petitioners having been f" committed assault on the person of the first informant with the intent to outrage her modesty,they having torn her clothes and disrobing her, having extended threats, all in the effort offorcing her outfrom the premises.
The petitioners claim is that the allegations are false and unfounded, they having recorded a telephonic conversation between Neena Oberoi
(mother-in-law of the complainant) and the first informant on the same evening where she had extended threats to get the maternal family members falsely implicated. Copy ofthe transcript ofthe telephonic conversation
04.12.2018 The allegations have been made againstthree petitioners herein in FIR no.407/2018 ofpolice station KN Katju Marg involving offences punishable under Sections 323/354/506/34 ofIndian Penal Code, 1860(IPG), the said
FIR having been registered on the statement of Varsha Oberoi,the wife of
Aman Kapoor,the petitioners Sanjeev Kapoor and Sushil Kapoor being his maternal uncle {Mama) and petitioner Bharat Bhushan Oberoi being his father (father-in-law to the complainant). It is alleged that all the three accused persons along with other relatives ofthe maternal family have been torturing the complainant for last some period,these petitioners having been f" committed assault on the person of the first informant with the intent to outrage her modesty,they having torn her clothes and disrobing her, having extended threats, all in the effort offorcing her outfrom the premises.
The petitioners claim is that the allegations are false and unfounded, they having recorded a telephonic conversation between Neena Oberoi
(mother-in-law of the complainant) and the first informant on the same evening where she had extended threats to get the maternal family members falsely implicated. Copy ofthe transcript ofthe telephonic conversation
BAIL APPLN.2756/2018& com. page2of3
)
V.- r- referred to has been placed on record. But, even if it was assumed that the said transcript is a true record ofthe conversation that had taken place there is nothing to indicate that there was a threat to create a false case against the petitioners. The first informant does appear from the said transcript to be quite perturbed and disturbed, she indicating lodging of cases but not necessarily on false averments. The assertion that the petitioners were not present at the scene at the alleged time of occurrence relates to the plea of alibi for which they have notfurnished any proofwith these petitions.
Having regard to the nature ofthe offences involved,and the evidence so far gathered, as indicated by the status report, it cannot be said that the case is wholly unfounded. No case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The petitions with accompanying applications are dismissed. t
R.K.GA1Q0A,^ DECEMBER 04,2018 nk
)
V.- r- referred to has been placed on record. But, even if it was assumed that the said transcript is a true record ofthe conversation that had taken place there is nothing to indicate that there was a threat to create a false case against the petitioners. The first informant does appear from the said transcript to be quite perturbed and disturbed, she indicating lodging of cases but not necessarily on false averments. The assertion that the petitioners were not present at the scene at the alleged time of occurrence relates to the plea of alibi for which they have notfurnished any proofwith these petitions.
Having regard to the nature ofthe offences involved,and the evidence so far gathered, as indicated by the status report, it cannot be said that the case is wholly unfounded. No case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The petitions with accompanying applications are dismissed. t
R.K.GA1Q0A,^ DECEMBER 04,2018 nk
BAIL APPLN.2756/2018(S conn. page3of3
JUDGMENT