Dineshkumar v. State of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 23 Nov 2016
Mukta Gupta
BAIL APPLN.1496/2016 & 1497/2016
criminal appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

Anticipatory bail granted in a gang rape case due to discrepancies in complainant's identity, lack of forensic evidence, and credible extortion claims, with conditions to cooperate in investigation.

Full Text
Translation output
7#&8# $~ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.1496/2016
DINESHKUMAR Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Sindu Sakkarwal and Mr. Hitender Sakkarwal, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI Respondent Represented by: Mr.Ravi Nayak,AFP for the
State with AST Kiran Sethi,PS RajnitNagar.
BAIL APPLN.1497/2016
VIPIN SAKKARWAL Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Sindu Sakkarwal and Mr. Hitender Sakkarwal, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI Respondent Represented by: Mr.Ravi Nayak,APP for the
State with ASI Kiran Sethi,PS Rajnit Nagar.
CORAM;
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
23.11.2016
ORDER

1. By these petitions, the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.192/2014 under Section 376(G)IPG registered atPS RanjitNagar.

2. In the above noted FIR lodged on 29^'' March,2015,the complainant alleged that she had constrained relations with her husband and she came to BAIL APPLN.1496/2016& 1497/2016 Page 1 of[3] 2016:DHC:8745 # know thather husband had remarried,so on 23''''March,2015 she visited the house ofher sister-in-law atPatel Nagar to make enquiries. When she was going back to her house at 9.00 PM,two persons followed her in a Car bearing registration No.DL 8CVD 8888 and offered her lift at Patel Road. When she was sitting in car,she found that both ofthem were drunk. They took the car to a street and raped her before throwing her near a medical shop. As it was late night, she was having pain and was confused, she did notlodge the FIR on the same day.

3. During the investigation, it was revealed that the prosecutrix/ complainant had not revealed her true identity i.e. her name, husband's name and residential address were found to be incorrect. Further the complainant had lodged another FIR being FIR No.167/2015 at PS Sabzi Mandi. The vehicle bearing No.DL 8CVD 8888 was registered in the name ofSakkarwal Travels Pvt. Ltd. which belongs to Vipin Sakkarwal who was one ofthe Directors ofthe company.

4. In the anticipatory bail petitions, the petitioners claimed that the complainant was trying to extort money from the parents and a CD in this regard was handed over. The same was sent to FSL for examination which was found to be genuine. The explanation ofthe complainant was that she had gone to the house ofthe accused Vipin Sakkarwal at the instance ofhis mother who was asking her to take money and settle the matter. As per the FSL report,neither blood stains nor semen stains could be detected from any of the articles which were lifted from the vehicle. The petitioners have alreadyjoined the investigation.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,I deem it fit to BAIL APPLN.1496/2016& 1497/2016 Page 2 of[3] grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is,therefore, directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each in the sum of^25000/- with one surety each ofthe like amount, subject to the satisfaction of arresting officer/SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that they will join the investigation as and when directed by the investigating officer and will not leave the country without prior permission ofthe Court Concerned.

6. Petitions are disposed of. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA,J. NOVEMBER 23,2016 'vkm' BAIL APPLN.1496/2016& 1497/2016 Page3of[3]