Yusuf Ali vs State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi)

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.2/2018 under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Krishna Nagar.Â

As per the allegations in the FIR, the prosecutrix was known to the petitioner for the last 2-3 years and he used to visit her house and had promised

to marry her. It is alleged that sometime in March, 2016 the petitioner came to the house of the prosecutrix and gave her a cold drink to drink and

she became unconscious after consuming the same. It is alleged that in that state, he made physical relation with her. The petitioner is alleged to

have again promised to marry the complainant but later on refused to marry her. Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated. He further contends that there is a long delay in lodging FIR

as the alleged incident is of March, 2016 and the FIR has been lodged in 2018. Â Â

By order dated 10.04.2018, the petitioner was granted interim bail subject to the petitioner joining investigation.Â

Learned APP submits that the petitioner did join investigation. Investigation is complete and charge sheet has already been filed.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case and on perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of

anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO, on his furnishing

a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO. Â

The petitioner shall not do anything, which may either prejudice the investigation or the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall not make any

attempt to contact the prosecutrix. The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial Count.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.