BAIL APPLN./1842/2015 of JITENDER Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Parties
- + BAIL APPLN. 1842/2015 & Crl.M.A.No. 12854/2015 JITENDER (PETITIONER)
- STATE (NCT OF DELHI (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 1842/2015 & Crl.M.A.No. 12854/2015JITENDERJITENDER
Petitioner
Through Mr. B.S. Rana, Mr. Pradeep vijayramand Mr. Satyam Sisodia, Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Respondent
Through Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the Statealong with SI Bijender.along with SI Bijender.& Crl.M.A.No. 12872/2015
+BAIL APPLN. 1849/2015 PREMWATIPREMWATI
Petitioner
Through Mr. B.S. Rana, Mr. Pradeep vijayramand Mr. Satyam Sisodia, Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Respondent
Through Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for theState along with SI Bijender.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
ORDER%16.10.2015
The petitioners before this Court are Jitender and Premwati.Present FIR has been registered on the complaint of the estrangedwife of Jitender which is an FIR under Sections 307/326-A/498-A/34of the IPG. Parties had been married on 21.05.2013. The incident hadoccurred on 30.07.2014. The allegation was that the respondents hadmade her consumed acid forcefully pursuant to which she was taken
to the hospital; her MLC was prepared; scientific evidence qua theacid content in the gastric lavage of the victim had also been obtained.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainantexamined as PW-15 has not supported the version of the prosecutionas on oath she has stated that she had consumed one categorically capof the acid bottle on her own; her mother examined as PW-16 has alsonot supported the stand of the prosecution. Further submissibn of thepetitioner is that as per the FSL, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid andnitric acid could not be detected in Ex. '2' which was the bloodsample of the victim.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the father of thevictim has supported the version of the prosecution. He was examinedas PW-12.
Nominal roll of the petitioner Jitender reflects that he has beenin custody since about 1 year and 2 months and nominal roll ofPremwati reflects that she has been in custody for about 1 year.
Noting the above factual matrix the submission of thepetitioners that the whole case rests upon the version of the victim(PW-15) and the scientific evidence also not supporting the version ofthe prosecution, both the petitioners admitted to bail on theirfurnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each with onesurety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concernedTrial Court with the condition that they shall appear before the TrialCourt as arid when matter is taken up for hearing. Needless to statethat the order passed today is not reflection on the merits of thecontroversy of the parties and the Trial Judge will pass order
uninfluenced by any observation made in this order.Applications disposed of.Order dasti under signatures of the Court blaster.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
OCTOBER 16, 2015