BAIL APPLN./1335/2016 of RAJESH MALIK Vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Parties
- Represented by: Mr. A.K. Padhy with Ms. S.R. Padhy, Advs. Padhy, Advs (PETITIONER)
- STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI (RESPONDENT)
Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)
1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Statutes cited (2)
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. 1335/2016
RAJESH MALIK ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. A.K. Padhy with Ms. S.R. Padhy, Advs. Padhy, Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, APP with SI Nitesh, PS Saket.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R R11.07.2016 11.07.2016
By the present petition, the petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No.54/2016 registered at PS Saket under Sections 354/376/377 IPC.
The complainant is the sister-in-law of the petitioner married to Bidesh Malik. perusal of the complaint shows that she was married to Bidesh Malik on 1[st] March, 2009 at Arya Samaj Mandir whereafter they lived as husband and wife. The complainant alleges demand of dowry, maltreatment and unnatural sex by her husband. The allegations span over period of seven years. The allegations against the petitioner are that after the complainant delivered girl on 16[th] June, 2012, the petitioner forcibly raped her.
Despite serious allegations the complainant lodged the FIR only on
12[th] January, 2016. It may be noted that the FIR No.54/2016 was lodged after the complaint filed by the brother of the petitioner dated 30[th] October, 2015 wherein the husband had alleged the complainant to be involved in extra-marital relationship.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner is no more required for investigation, I deem it fit to grant bail to him. The petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
JULY 11, 2016 ‘v mittal’
MUKTA GUPTA, J.