← Library
High Court of DelhiBAIL APPLN./1001/2018

Valesh Purohit v. State (NCT Of Delhi)

2018-05-22Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S.P.Garg2 pages

$~13 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 1001/2018 VALESH PUROHIT ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advocate.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through :

Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

O R D E R

% 22.05.2018 1.

The petitioner seeks regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.122/18 under Section 376 IPC registered at Police Station Kapashera. Status report is on record. 2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Petitioner's counsel urged that the petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2018. Allegations against the petitioner are false. Since the petitioner had married the prosecutrix, no offence under Section 376 IPC was committed. The petitioner and the prosecutrix were having love affairs for the last about two years. The prosecutrix is major.

BAIL APPLN. 1001/2018

3.

Status report reveals that the complainant has levelled serious allegations against the petitioner whereby he established physical relations with her and performed marriage in February, 2018. It is informed that subsequently the complainant came to know that the petitioner was already a married person and had a child. Status report further reveals that threats are being extended to the complainant by the petitioner's brother not to pursue the case. 4.

During the course of arguments, it was specifically enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner if the petitioner was a married person and had a child. It was so accepted. Apparently, the petitioner being a married man had allegedly established physical relations with prosecutrix concealing his marital status. 5.

The case is at its initial stage and statement of the prosecutrix is yet to be recorded. The complainant is being allegedly threatened by the petitioner's brother.

6.

Considering the gravity of the offence and the serious allegations, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. 7.

The bail application is dismissed.

S.P.GARG, J.

MAY 22, 2018/sa BAIL APPLN. 1001/2018