Full Text
Translation output
a HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1121/2015
VIJAY KUMAR Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Sr. Adv. with
Js^r. Pawan Sharma, Adv.
BAIL APPLN. 1121/2015
VIJAY KUMAR Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Sr. Adv. with
Js^r. Pawan Sharma, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP with Inspector Surya Prakash, PS K.M. Pur.
BAIL APPLN. 1122/2015
SUDESH KUMAR Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv.
SUDESH KUMAR Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP with Inspector Surya Prakash, PS K.M. Pur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
19.07.2016 By the present petitions, the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case
FIR No. 624/2015 registered at PS K.M. Pur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. Thoughthey do not dispute that they were knowing the prosecutrix, however they state that they neither went to the flat of the prosecutrix nor such incident took place. The falsity of the allegation is
19.07.2016 By the present petitions, the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case
FIR No. 624/2015 registered at PS K.M. Pur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. Thoughthey do not dispute that they were knowing the prosecutrix, however they state that they neither went to the flat of the prosecutrix nor such incident took place. The falsity of the allegation is
BAIL APPLN. 1121/2015 iSc 1122/2015 Page 1 to 3
2016:DHC:8219
•v t
>5= proved by DNA report of the baby of the prosecutrix which shows that neither ofthe petitioners is the biological father ofthe baby.
Learned APP for the State on instructions submits that a charge sheet has been filed and copy of the DNA report has been placed before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and thus no anticipatory bail be granted.
Inthe FIR, the prosecutrix alleged that Sonu an acquaintance got her a job at NBCC office under the supervisor Sudhir. Since the prosecutrix had no place to stay, Sudhir helped her to get aflat in Bhogal and he used to pay her ^13000/- per month as salary. The prosecutrix knew cooking and had also done a beautician course thus she used to give body massage to Sudhir and his senior officer Vijay. Later she realized that her name had not been entered in the official register and Sudhir used to pay her salary fi"om his pocket. It is alleged thatboth Sudhir and Vijay had sexual intercourse with her after offering cold drink in which some intoxicant was mixed. When she got to know about pregnancy, she informed the same to Sudhir who asked her to get the abortion done. Since her blood group was O negative and pregnancy was over 4 months, there was risk in abortion she could not get the same done. Thus, she made a call to 100 number and lodged the complaint. She stated in the FIR that child in her womb is either of Sudhir or Vijay.
During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix could not identify the flat where she was kept. Later on she pointed out a flat which was found to be locked. Though in the FIR it is alleged that the foetus in the womb of prosecutrix was either of Sudhir or Vijay however DNA report belies the
2016:DHC:8219
•v t
>5= proved by DNA report of the baby of the prosecutrix which shows that neither ofthe petitioners is the biological father ofthe baby.
Learned APP for the State on instructions submits that a charge sheet has been filed and copy of the DNA report has been placed before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and thus no anticipatory bail be granted.
Inthe FIR, the prosecutrix alleged that Sonu an acquaintance got her a job at NBCC office under the supervisor Sudhir. Since the prosecutrix had no place to stay, Sudhir helped her to get aflat in Bhogal and he used to pay her ^13000/- per month as salary. The prosecutrix knew cooking and had also done a beautician course thus she used to give body massage to Sudhir and his senior officer Vijay. Later she realized that her name had not been entered in the official register and Sudhir used to pay her salary fi"om his pocket. It is alleged thatboth Sudhir and Vijay had sexual intercourse with her after offering cold drink in which some intoxicant was mixed. When she got to know about pregnancy, she informed the same to Sudhir who asked her to get the abortion done. Since her blood group was O negative and pregnancy was over 4 months, there was risk in abortion she could not get the same done. Thus, she made a call to 100 number and lodged the complaint. She stated in the FIR that child in her womb is either of Sudhir or Vijay.
During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix could not identify the flat where she was kept. Later on she pointed out a flat which was found to be locked. Though in the FIR it is alleged that the foetus in the womb of prosecutrix was either of Sudhir or Vijay however DNA report belies the
BAIL APPLN. 1121/2015 & 1122/2015 Page 2 to 3 same.
Be that as it may, the petitioners are no more required to join investigation and charge sheet has already been filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to 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 in the sum of
?25000/- each and one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Arresting Officer/SHO concerned. The petitioners will not leave the country without prior permission ofthe Court.
Petitions are disposed of Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 19, 2016 'vkm'
Be that as it may, the petitioners are no more required to join investigation and charge sheet has already been filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to 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 in the sum of
?25000/- each and one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Arresting Officer/SHO concerned. The petitioners will not leave the country without prior permission ofthe Court.
Petitions are disposed of Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 19, 2016 'vkm'
BAIL APPLN. 1121/2015 & 1122/2015 Page 3 to 3
JUDGMENT