NyayAI Legal Knowledge Graph — Public Judgment & Act Pages (validation build, unlisted)

BAIL APPLN./731/2017 of SONU CHOUHAN Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

Court
Delhi High Court
Decision date
2017-10-12
Case number
392 of 2016

Parties

Statutes cited (6)

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

Show all Header

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 731/2017SONU CHOUHAN..... PetitionerSONU CHOUHAN..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

versus

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R R%25.05.2017

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with FIR No.392/2016 dated30.09.2016 (PS Badarpur) instituted for the offences under sections 376/328of the IPC.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the case isabsolutely false, which could be discerned from the narration made in thecomplaint itself. The prosecutrix knew the petitioner from before and hadbeen living with him.

The petitioner is alleged to have mixed some stupefying substance inthe cold drink which was offered to her whereafter she is alleged to havebeen ravished.This allegations do not inspire confidence, inasmuch as,admittedly, the prosecutrix had been staying with the petitioner for long

time at different locations.

The records reveal that the petitioner had himself visited the policestation on 08.11.2016 when he was subjected to medical examination andwas also arrested. The prosecutrix has not yet been examined at the trial.

Out of 18 cited witnesses, not even one witness has yet beenexamined before the Trial Court so far.

Be that as it may considering the nature of accusation and thecircumstances attending the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to thepetitioner.

The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing abond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to thesatisfaction of the Trial Court.

It is however made clear that in case the petitioner threatens the

prosecutrix or makes any attempt to tamper with the evidence, it would beopen for the state to apply for cancellation of his bail. The petitioner shallparticipate in the Trial and his absence in the Trial Court on the threeconsecutive dates without any plausible explanation would further entitle thestate to ask for cancellation of his bail.

MAY 25, 2017ab

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J