High Court of DelhiBAIL APPLN./211/2017

Mangal Pandey v. State

2017-02-02Hon'Ble Mr. Justice I.S.Mehta2 pages

$~23 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 211/2017 MANGAL PANDEY ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Vishnu Sharma, Adv. with Mr.Sachin and Ms.Sapna Sharma, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for State SI Sandeep Singh, PS-I.P. Estate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R D E R

% 02.02.2017 CRL.M.A.1892/2017 Exemption granted, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 211/2017 This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.10/2017, under Sections 377/506/34 IPC & Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station-I.P. Estate, Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person having no nexus with the FIR No.10/2017, under Sections 377/506/34 IPC & Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station- I.P. Estate, Delhi. Learned counsel further submits that the

petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the above case. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He further submits that there are several civil and criminal litigations going on between the parties and the allegation qua against the petitioner is false. He submits that the petitioner is ready to join investigation in this case and prays that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submitted that there is specific allegation in the FIR that the petitioner alongwith two co-accused subjected unnatural sexual offence on the person of the victim. She submitted that the victim is a six year old boy. She has further submitted that statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C has already been recorded and as per the statement, the victim supports the contents of the FIR.

In the instant petition, the victim (S) is six years old. The petitioner is named in the FIR. As per the FIR, the petitioner is alleged to have committed unnatural sexual offence on the person of victim (S). The investigation of the case is at initial stage. Accordingly, I do not find it a fit case grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently the present bail application is dismissed.

The present petition is disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be given dasti, as prayed. I.S.MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 02, 2017/radhika