Full Text
Translation output
$--36 & 37 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1965/2016
NITISH KUMAR @ NITIN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Dahiya, Adv.
BAIL APPLN. 1965/2016
NITISH KUMAR @ NITIN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Dahiya, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Through:
Respondent Dr. M.P. Singh, APP for State with SI
Seema, P.S. Najafgarh.
Mr. S.K. Gautam and Mr. B.S.
Jakhar, Advs. for the Complainant.
Through:
Respondent Dr. M.P. Singh, APP for State with SI
Seema, P.S. Najafgarh.
Mr. S.K. Gautam and Mr. B.S.
Jakhar, Advs. for the Complainant.
AND
BAIL APPLN. 1966/2016
AMIT KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Dahiya, Adv.
AMIT KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Dahiya, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Through:
Respondent Dr. M.P. Singh, APP for State with SI
Seema, P.S. Najafgarh.
Mr. S.K. Gautam and Mr. B.S.
Jakhar, Advs. for the Complainant.
Through:
Respondent Dr. M.P. Singh, APP for State with SI
Seema, P.S. Najafgarh.
Mr. S.K. Gautam and Mr. B.S.
Jakhar, Advs. for the Complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
26.09.2016 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are devars
(brothers of husband) of complainant. On account of marital discord with her husband, complainant left her matrimonial home and has filed a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell on September, 2016
2016:DHC:8686 roping in all the family members. Simultaneously, present FIR was got registered on 9^*^ September, 201b against the petitioners relating to the alleged incident dated 22"'^ February, 2016 in respect of petitioner-Amit
Kumar and incident dated 30 May, 2016 in respect of petitioner-Nitish
Kumar @ Nitin. Learned counsel submits that no such incidents took place and petitioners have been falsely implicated to put pressure on their brother to settle the matter. Learned counsel submits that no custodial interrogation is required. It is prayed that petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.
Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the grant ofbail to the petitioners on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against them. He submits that complainant has alleged that on 22"^ February, 2016 petitioner-Amit Kumar took the complainant in his car to drop her at the airportand on the way he touchedher thigh and breast. Complainant has further alleged that on 30^^ May, 2016 petitioner-Nitish Kumar caught her hand and tried to pull her near him.
Keeping in mind totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including the delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that no custodial interrogation is required to recover anything, it is ordered that in case of arrest petitioners be released on bail subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of^10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO of the concerned police station. Petitioners shall, however, cooperate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when they are called upon to do so.
Both the applications are disposed of in the above terms.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 ga A.K.CPATHAK, J
26.09.2016 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are devars
(brothers of husband) of complainant. On account of marital discord with her husband, complainant left her matrimonial home and has filed a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell on September, 2016
2016:DHC:8686 roping in all the family members. Simultaneously, present FIR was got registered on 9^*^ September, 201b against the petitioners relating to the alleged incident dated 22"'^ February, 2016 in respect of petitioner-Amit
Kumar and incident dated 30 May, 2016 in respect of petitioner-Nitish
Kumar @ Nitin. Learned counsel submits that no such incidents took place and petitioners have been falsely implicated to put pressure on their brother to settle the matter. Learned counsel submits that no custodial interrogation is required. It is prayed that petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.
Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the grant ofbail to the petitioners on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against them. He submits that complainant has alleged that on 22"^ February, 2016 petitioner-Amit Kumar took the complainant in his car to drop her at the airportand on the way he touchedher thigh and breast. Complainant has further alleged that on 30^^ May, 2016 petitioner-Nitish Kumar caught her hand and tried to pull her near him.
Keeping in mind totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including the delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that no custodial interrogation is required to recover anything, it is ordered that in case of arrest petitioners be released on bail subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of^10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO of the concerned police station. Petitioners shall, however, cooperate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when they are called upon to do so.
Both the applications are disposed of in the above terms.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 ga A.K.CPATHAK, J
JUDGMENT