Mukesh Gawari v. State

1. ByBailApplicationNo.1740/2016MukeshGawariseeksregularball whereas BharatJha and Madan Thakurin Bail Application Nos.1677/2016 and 1736/2016respectively seek anticipatoty bail in caseFIR No500/2016 under Sections451/354D/354A/34IPG and Section 12ofthe Protection of ChildrenfromSexualOffencesAct,2012(inshort'POCSOAct')registered atPS Neb Sarai,Delhi.

2. Learned counsels for the petitioners contend the fact that a quarrel tookplace betweenthetwosidesisfortified byanumberofPGRcallsmade by the two parties. No allegations under Section 376 IPG have been levelled. TheindependentwitnessV.D.DubeywhocalledthePGRhasnot supportedtheversionofthecomplainantandthushisstatementhasnotbeen recorded. Therearenospecificallegationsagainstthepetitioners. Theonly allegationsareagainstthetwoboyswhoarejuvenilesandthusregularbail toMukeshGawariandanticipatoiybailtoBharatJhaandMadanThakurbe granted.

3. TheabovenotedFIRwasregisteredonthecomplaintdated 12*^June 2016 wherein the complainant stated that her husband was doingJob in' Mauritius since 2012and she was living with her oneson and two minor daughters a, Deoli Village. It is alleged that sons ofBharat Jha were molesting herdaughters. On 11'^June,2016 whenshereturned back from er native village her daughters again complained of molestation It is toher stated that at 8.00-8.30PM on the same day Bharat Jha,Mukesh Gawari and Madan Thakur and the twoJuveniles came to her house and bailAPPLN.1740/2016,1677/2016&1736/2016 ^of[4] s knocked the door. When she opened the house,Bharat Jha and Mukesh Gawari pushed heraside and Madan Thakurtold the twojuvenilesto rape herminordaughters. Thepetitionershereincaughtholdofthecomplainant and pushed hertowardsthe wall. Inthemeantime,hersoncamethere.

4. There is no allegation ofeither rape or even attempt to rape thus Section376read withSection511 IPChasrightlybeennotinvoked.

5. A perusalofthe DDentries filed along with the status reportreveals that complaint ofquarrel was made by both the sides. The allegations of molestationareagainstthetwojuvenilesandnotagainstthepetitioners. No MLC wasgotprepared asno-onereceivedinjuries.

6. Consideringthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseandin viewofthe facts noted above,Ideem it fitto grantanticlpatoiy bail to BharatJha and Madan Thakur. It is, therefore, directed that in the event ofarrest, the petitioners Bharat Jha and Madan Thakur will be released on bail on their furnishinga personal bond inthesum of?25,000/-each with onesurety of thelikeamounteachsubjecttothesatisfactionoftheArrestingOfTicer/SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that they will join the investigation asand when directed bytheInvestigating Officerand will not leavethecountrywithoutpriorpermissionoftheCourtconcerned.

7. AsregardsMukeshGawari,whoisinjudicialcustodysince29"'July, 2016the grantofbailisopposed on the ground that heisinvolved in other cases. A perusal ofthe status report would reveal that outofthe six cases mentioned,intwothe petitionerhas been acquitted and one hasbeen sentas untraced. Further the petitioner Mukesh Gawari has been in custody for nearly I'A months and is no more required for custodial Interrogation. BAILAPPLN.1740/2016,1677/2016&1736/2016 Page3of[4] HenceI deem itfitto grant bail to Mukesh Gawari.It is therefore directed that the petitioner Mukesh Gawari be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of?25,000/- with one surety ofthe like amount subject to the satisfaction ofthe learned Trial Court,further subjectto the condition thathe willnotleavethecountry withoutprior permission ofthe Court concerned.

8. Bail applications are disposed of.

9. Order dasti. SEPTEMBER09,2016 MUKTA GUPTA,J. 'vn' BAILAPPLN.1740/2016,1677/2016&1736/2016 Page4of[4]