Full Text
Translation output
$-9 & 10 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1412/2017
RAKESH KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.K.Perwez,Adv.
BAIL APPLN. 1412/2017
RAKESH KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.K.Perwez,Adv.
VERSUS
STATE(GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak,APP for the State with Inspector Virender Kumar, Crime Branch.
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak,APP for the State with Inspector Virender Kumar, Crime Branch.
BAIL APPLN. 1362/2018 & Crl.M.A. 11252/2018
SUNNY Petitioner
Through: Mr.Prince Bhardwaj,Proxy Adv. / ,
SUNNY Petitioner
Through: Mr.Prince Bhardwaj,Proxy Adv. / ,
VERSUS
STATE(GOVT.OF NCT OF DELFII) Respondent
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak,APP for the State with Inspector Virender Kumar,'
Crime Branch.
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak,APP for the State with Inspector Virender Kumar,'
Crime Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
20.07.2018 The names ofthe petitioners have come up during investigation into
FIR No. 247/2017 involving offences punishable under Sections
363/366A/120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3, 4 and 16 of
Protection ofChildren from Sexual Offences Act,2012 and Section 11 of
20.07.2018 The names ofthe petitioners have come up during investigation into
FIR No. 247/2017 involving offences punishable under Sections
363/366A/120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3, 4 and 16 of
Protection ofChildren from Sexual Offences Act,2012 and Section 11 of
BAIL APPLN. 1412/2017& conn. Page I of3
2018:DHC:8229 Prohibition ofChild Maniage Act,2006 being investigated by police station
Ranhola since taken over by crime branch ofDelhi Police. The prosecutnx at the relevant point oftime is stated to have been 16 years 6 months, her date ofbirth having been described as 09.10.2000,she allegedly having been enticed and taken away from out of the lawful custody and care of the parents by petitioner Sunny, the other petitioner Rakesh Kumar being his father. It appears the prosecutrix and petitioner Sunny underwent some ceremony on 19.05.2017 whereby it is claimed by the petitioners that she had got married to said Sunny. The controversy had come up as subject matter ofwrit petition(Crl.)1387/2017 which was heard by a division bench of this Court on 30.05.2017. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the complainant's father for the reason the prosecutrix had appeared before another bench in writ petition (Crl.) 1590/2017. The learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the investigating officer, submits that the said other writ petition was also later withdrawn and disposed of accordingly. The investigation, however, has brought out that in the writ petition (Crl.) 1387/2017, copy of the Aadhar card of the prosecutrix was used indicating her date ofbirth to be 09.10.1998,it having been found upon investigation to be a forged and fabricated document. The role of the petitioner Rakesh Kumar in arranging the said fabricated document has come up during investigation.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the gravity ofthe offences involved, it is not a fit case for this Court to indulge the petitioners by grant ofdiscretionary reliefofanticipatory bail.
The petitions are dismissed. The interim order is vacated.
2018:DHC:8229 Prohibition ofChild Maniage Act,2006 being investigated by police station
Ranhola since taken over by crime branch ofDelhi Police. The prosecutnx at the relevant point oftime is stated to have been 16 years 6 months, her date ofbirth having been described as 09.10.2000,she allegedly having been enticed and taken away from out of the lawful custody and care of the parents by petitioner Sunny, the other petitioner Rakesh Kumar being his father. It appears the prosecutrix and petitioner Sunny underwent some ceremony on 19.05.2017 whereby it is claimed by the petitioners that she had got married to said Sunny. The controversy had come up as subject matter ofwrit petition(Crl.)1387/2017 which was heard by a division bench of this Court on 30.05.2017. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the complainant's father for the reason the prosecutrix had appeared before another bench in writ petition (Crl.) 1590/2017. The learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the investigating officer, submits that the said other writ petition was also later withdrawn and disposed of accordingly. The investigation, however, has brought out that in the writ petition (Crl.) 1387/2017, copy of the Aadhar card of the prosecutrix was used indicating her date ofbirth to be 09.10.1998,it having been found upon investigation to be a forged and fabricated document. The role of the petitioner Rakesh Kumar in arranging the said fabricated document has come up during investigation.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the gravity ofthe offences involved, it is not a fit case for this Court to indulge the petitioners by grant ofdiscretionary reliefofanticipatory bail.
The petitions are dismissed. The interim order is vacated.
BAIL APPLN. 1412/2017& conn. Page 2of3
The petitioners are directed to present theniselves before the investigating officer forthwith.
K.GAU JULY 20,2018 nk
The petitioners are directed to present theniselves before the investigating officer forthwith.
K.GAU JULY 20,2018 nk
BAILAPPLN. 1412/2017& conn. Page 3 of3
JUDGMENT