Kishan Singh v. State (The NCT Of Delhi)

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1070/2016 KISHAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Adv.

versus STATE (THE NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Represented by:

Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP with SI Nitesh Sharma, PS Saket.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 16.08.2016 1.

By the present petition the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.401/2016 under Section 376 IPC read with 6 POCSO Act registered at PS Saket.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prosecutrix has made no allegation against the petitioner in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was recorded immediately on the next day after the FIR was registered. The present case is a counter-blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner against one Pawan Yadav who started living at the premises. 3.

Learned APP for the State has taken me through the FIR and the status report.

4.

The above-noted FIR was registered on 7th May, 2016 on the complaint of the prosecutrix who alleged that when her parents and her BAIL APPLN. 1070/2016

younger sister had gone to the local market, the petitioner came there and sent her brother outside the house. Taking advantage of her he committed rape on her. Immediately on the same day the prosecutrix was medically examined and next day produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

5.

In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix stated that they had gone to the village on 27th April, 2016. On 5th May, 2016 they came back. When they had a fight with Kishan Singh, on the next day Kishan Singh did not come to their house but he called up his mother and stated that he had made a complaint against them. Immediately thereafter her mother made a call to 100 number in a hurry and got lodged the FIR. 6.

Considering the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. I deem it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is therefore directed that in the event of arrest the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/ SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that he will join the investigation as and when directed and will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court concerned.

7.

Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

AUGUST 16, 2016 'ga'

BAIL APPLN. 1070/2016