Smt Sunita v. State

$~49 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 2268/2016 SMT SUNITA ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr.

Ajay Sharma, Ms.

Radhika Sharma, Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Mr. G.

R. Sharma and Mr. S. S. Yadav, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through :

Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP.

Mr.

S.

K.

Balain, Adv.

for complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 07.11.2016 Crl.M.A.17310/2016 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 2268/2016 Petitioner is mother in law of complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire family has been implicated by the complainant. On 8th October, 2015, Pushpa had gone to appear in the board examination and petitioner had accompanied her. Examination centre was about 10 kms away from the house. Despite this, complainant has alleged that on 8th October, 2015, she was beaten by all the family members including

petitioner and Pushpa resulting in miscarriage. It is further submitted that petitioner is a senior citizen and has been falsely implicated. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who is assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that allegations are serious in nature and specific role has been assigned to the petitioner. Examination centre was hardly four kms away. On account of beating on 8th October, 2015, the pregnancy had to be terminated.

Keeping in mind the totality of facts and circumstances, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioner be released on bail subject to her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.

Petitioner shall, however, cooperate in investigation.

Application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti. A.K. PATHAK, J.

NOVEMBER 07, 2016/dk