BAIL APPLN./1198/2017 of SAURABH PASSI Vs THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
Parties
- BAIL APPLN./1198/2017 of SAURABH PASSI (PETITIONER)
- THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI (RESPONDENT)
Cited by (42)
Counts citations resolved within this build's own ingested judgment corpus. The true corpus-wide count will be higher until more of the corpus is ingested.
- CIVIL APPEAL None (2025)
- CRL.L.P./304/2018 of PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS (2025)
- CRL.L.P./148/2018 of DEVENDER KUMAR GUPTA Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR (2025)
- CRL.L.P./303/2018 of PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS (2025)
- CRL.A./815/2025 of VIVEK GARG, ADVOCATE Vs STATE AND ANR (2025)
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 (3)
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. 1198/2017SAURABH PASSI..... PetitionerThroughMs.Sumita Kapil, Adv. withMr.Hanumant Sakhuja & Ms.PoojaSwami, Advs.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)..... RespondentThroughMr.Arun Kumar Sharma, APP.W/SI Preeti PS Model Town.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%17.08.2017
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with FIR No.168/2017 dated26.04.2017 (PS Model Town) instituted for the offences under sections376/354/506/34 of the IPC.
The petitioner is said to be in custody since 15.05.2017.
The prosecutrix has alleged that she came in contact with thepetitioner sometimes in the year 2014 while visiting gym and then shewent abroad. Thereafter it is stated that the petitioner met the complainantonly after her having coming back.It is alleged that on 01.01.2017, thepetitioner had visited the house of the prosecutrix with bottle of liquorwhich he consumed along with her and thereafter subjected her to sexualintercourse. When she regained her consciousness, it is alleged, thepetitioner made her understand that he would marry her. Later, as theallegations stands, the behaviour of the petitioner changed and he refused to
enter into any marital relationship with the prosecutrix.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of thisCourt to the complaint which was lodged two days prior to the lodging ofthe present case, against the prosecutrix alleging commission of several actsdirected towards harassing him.
This Court has also been taken through the various SMS messageswhich have been sent by the prosecutrix to the petitioner.
The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. isalso substantially different from the averments made in the FIR.Thepetitioner is stated to be sports person of repute.The prosecutrix is aperson of mature age and it cannot be said that she was not understandingthe nature and quality of the liaison with the petitioner.
Chargesheet in this case has already been submitted.
Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to grant bail tothe petitioner.
Let the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bond in thesum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction ofthe Trial Court.
Needless to state that the petitioner shall participate in the trial and hisunexplained absence from the trial proceedings on three consecutiveoccasions would entitle the prosecution to proceed for cancellation of hisbail.
The application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
AUGUST 17, 2017/ab
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J