Praveen Sharma v. State

$~9&10 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 1043/2019 SACHIN SHARMA Through:

Petitioner Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate versus Respondent Mr. Amit Chadha, APP with Inspector Dorothia, PS: Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.

STATE Through:

WITH + BAIL APPLN. 1044/2019 PRAVEBN SHARMA Through:

Petitioner Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate versus STATE Respondent Through:

Mr. Amit Chadha, APP with Inspector Dorothia, PS: Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

ORDER

% 07.11.2019 1.

These are the applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) filed by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the victim alleged that approx. 9 years ago, when she was studying, she came in contact with a person, namely, Vijay and they became friends By:AMULYA

and fell in love. Vijay developed physical relations with the victim on the pretext of marrying her. In 2014, the victim got pregnant.

3.

During investigation, statement of the victim under Section 164, Cr. PC was recorded on 5.2.2019, wherein she stated that one of the friends of Vijay, Sachin Sharma, the petitioner herein in Bail Appn. No.1043/2019, helped Vijay in getting the victim's pregnancy aborted. During investigation, petitioner in Bail Appn. No.1043/2019 joined investigation on 4.3.2019. During investigation, it was further found that Sachin Shanna, petitioner in Bail Appn. No.1043/2019 and Praveen Sharma, petitioner in Bail Appn. No. 1044/2019, both were friends of Vijay. It was further revealed during investigation that Praveen Sharma used to run the New Life Hospital where the victim's pregnancy was aborted.

4.

Both the petitioners herein filed the anticipatory bail applications, which were dismissed vide order dated 12.4.2019. 5.

Learned APP submitted that the State shall file chargesheet, most probably within four weeks. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in these matters, this Court, vide order dated 23.5.2019, passed interim orders and had protected the petitioners, hence, appropriate orders may be passed for protecting the petitioners before the filing of the charge-sheet.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that he shall move an application for grant of regular bail after the

filing of the charge-sheet before the Trial Court. 8.

In view ofthe aforesaid facts, the petitioners, in the event of their arrest, be released on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/IO till the filing of the charge-sheet. However, if need of arrest arises, the 10 shall give three working days' notice to the petitioners so that they may avail the legal remedy. Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join and cooperate in the investigation, as and when called by the SHO/IO in writing; that they shall not involve in any activity which may prejudice the prosecution. The petitioners are also directed not to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

9.

Bail applications are disposed of in above terms. CHANDlll^HEKHAR, J NOVEMBER 07, 2019 tp