High CourtsSingle Bench

Deepak vs State(NCT Of Delhi)

Delhi High Court · Decided on 5 July 2018 · Citation: (2018) 07 DEL CK 0063

HON’BLE JUDGES
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code 1860 — Section 323, 354, 376
RESULT
Diposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appln. 791 Of 2018

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 436 words

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 330/2017 under Sections 376/354/323Â of the IPC, Police Station Badarpur, New Delhi. The

petitioner has been in custody since 13.09.2017.

2.

The allegations against the petitioner who is the cousin brother of the husband of the complainant are that he came to the house of the complainant

for extending an invitation for marriage of his brother. It is alleged in the FIR that the complainant thereafter called up her husband and informed him

that the accused had come. Further, it is alleged that thereafter the accused misbehaved with the complainant and committed the offence under

Sections 354/376 of the IPC. The complainant thereafter is alleged to have run away to the balcony and once again called her husband on which the

petitioner is alleged to have run away after locking the room from outside.Â

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He further submits that the allegations made in the

complaint are not substantiated from the report submitted by the FSL and as per his instructions no call was made by the complainant to her husband

as is alleged.Â

4.

Investigation is complete. Charge sheet has already been filed. The petitioner is in custody since 13.09.2017. Investigating Officer has produced the

records of the case as also the call detail records of both â€" the complainant and her husband. The call detail records do not show that there is any

telephone call made by the complainant to her husband as is alleged in the FIR.  Â

5.

I have perused the records produced by the IO including the call detail records in respect of both, the complainant as well as her husband. Â

6.

Without commenting of the merits of the case as also on examination of the record, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for

grant of regular bail.  Â

7.

Subject to petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- alongwith one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court,

the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in another case. The petitioner shall not do anything, which may either prejudice the trial or the

prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall not make any endeavour to contact the complainant or her family members. The petitioner shall not leave

the country without permission of the trial court. Â

8.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.  Â

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.