BAIL APPLN./1775/2018 of DHANANJAY SHARMA @ RAJAT SHARMA Vs THE STATE
Parties
- DHANANJAY SHARMA @ RAJAT SHARMA (PETITIONER)
- THE STATE (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 (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. 1775/2018
DHANANJAY SHARMA @ RAJAT SHARMA..... PetitionerThroughMr. Vikas Sharma, Adv.ThroughMr. Vikas Sharma, Adv.
versus
THE STATE..... RespondentThroughMs. Manjeet Arya, APP with SI VijayKumar, P.S. Farsh BazarThroughMs. Manjeet Arya, APP with SI VijayKumar, P.S. Farsh Bazar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R R%05.09.2018
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner andprosecutrix were in relationship for more than one year.After theirrelationship broke off, prosecutrix has lodged the present FIR No. 151/2018under Sections 376/328/506 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act at police stationFarsh Bazar. Certain photographs have been placed on record as AnnexureP-1 to Annexure P-6 to indicate that petitioner and prosecutrix were in aclose relationship, inasmuch as their family members were also known toeach other. In Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6, petitioner is seen with themother of prosecutrix. It is submitted that prosecutrix was major at the time
when she lodged the FIR. She was about 19 years of age. DD was registeredby the mother of prosecutrix on 29[th]October, 2017; whereas FIR wasregistered on 18[th]May, 2018.During this period, petitioner had evenparticipated in the inquiry conducted by the police officer. However, he wasnot arrested.
Learned APP submits that petitioner was not arrested since petitionerand family of the prosecutrix had settled the matter on 5[th]April, 2018.Learned APP has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Itis contended that prosecutrix was minor in the year 2016 when petitionerhad made physical relations with her for the first time after administeringsome intoxicating substance in the cold drink.
I have perused the photographs as well as other material placed onrecord.
Keeping in mind the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, itis ordered that in case of arrest, petitioner be released on bail subject to hisfurnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of theInvestigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO concerned.Petitioner shall,however, cooperate in the investigation and shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when he is called upon to do so.
Bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti.
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018
r.bararia
A.K. PATHAK, J.