Full Text
Translation output
2-^ $-3,4 and 5 , / ^ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1972/2017
KRISHAN Petitioner
Through:, Mr.Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate
BAIL APPLN. 1972/2017
KRISHAN Petitioner
Through:, Mr.Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE (NOT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State with
W/SI Sangeeta, PS Mangol Puri
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State with
W/SI Sangeeta, PS Mangol Puri
BAIL APPLN. 1996/2017
RAKESH Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate versus, STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondent
W/SI Sangeeta, PS Mangol Puri
RAKESH Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate versus, STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondent
W/SI Sangeeta, PS Mangol Puri
BAIL APPLN. 1998/2017
ELU @RAHUL Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate
ELU @RAHUL Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondent W/SI Sangeeta, PSMangol Puri
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
2017:DHC:8511 23.10.2017 On behalf of the applicant it has been submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case and that as per the status, report submitted on behalf of the State, the statement of the complainant in relation to allegation of the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 354-B & 354 of the IPG and
Section 12 of the POCSO Act, have been brought forth only after a period of 12 days after the said incident.
On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the delay in the recording of the Statement of 164 Cr.P.C. of the child, i.e. the daughter of the compkinant (qua whom it is submitted on behalf of the applicants that there was no mention of any incident with the daughter or her presence being recorded in the FIR), it has been submitted on behalf of the State that the same was delayed due to injuries that had been caused to the mother and there is no other ostensible reason for the delay in recording the statement of the minor child put forth.
Without any observations on the merits or demerits of the case, and on a perusal of the statement dated 14.9.2017 under Section 164
Cr.P.C. of the minor child, aged 11 years apart from narrating the incident of the date 2.9.2017 as also the given detailed report of the instances taking place continuously even prior to the dated 2.9.2017 and the factum, that the overt acts have been attributed against the applicants, Rakesh and Krishan there is no ground for grant of anticipatory bail and thus the Bail Appln. No.1972/2017 and Bail
ApplnNo. 1996/2017 are declined.
As regards the applicant Elu @ Rahul, the applicant in Bail
Appln. No.1998/2017, the only allegation levelled against him relates to userof abusive abusing language. Thus inthe event of arrest ofthe applicant Elu@ Rahul, the said applicant is allowed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with a direction that he shall join the investigation as and when required.
The Bail Appln. No.1998/2017 is allowed in the above terms.
OCTOBER 23, 2017 ( O -y ANU IV^ALHOTRA, J
2017:DHC:8511 23.10.2017 On behalf of the applicant it has been submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case and that as per the status, report submitted on behalf of the State, the statement of the complainant in relation to allegation of the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 354-B & 354 of the IPG and
Section 12 of the POCSO Act, have been brought forth only after a period of 12 days after the said incident.
On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the delay in the recording of the Statement of 164 Cr.P.C. of the child, i.e. the daughter of the compkinant (qua whom it is submitted on behalf of the applicants that there was no mention of any incident with the daughter or her presence being recorded in the FIR), it has been submitted on behalf of the State that the same was delayed due to injuries that had been caused to the mother and there is no other ostensible reason for the delay in recording the statement of the minor child put forth.
Without any observations on the merits or demerits of the case, and on a perusal of the statement dated 14.9.2017 under Section 164
Cr.P.C. of the minor child, aged 11 years apart from narrating the incident of the date 2.9.2017 as also the given detailed report of the instances taking place continuously even prior to the dated 2.9.2017 and the factum, that the overt acts have been attributed against the applicants, Rakesh and Krishan there is no ground for grant of anticipatory bail and thus the Bail Appln. No.1972/2017 and Bail
ApplnNo. 1996/2017 are declined.
As regards the applicant Elu @ Rahul, the applicant in Bail
Appln. No.1998/2017, the only allegation levelled against him relates to userof abusive abusing language. Thus inthe event of arrest ofthe applicant Elu@ Rahul, the said applicant is allowed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with a direction that he shall join the investigation as and when required.
The Bail Appln. No.1998/2017 is allowed in the above terms.
OCTOBER 23, 2017 ( O -y ANU IV^ALHOTRA, J
JUDGMENT