Rakesh Kumar v. State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi)
$-9 & *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1412/2017 RAKESH KUMAR Petitioner Through:
Mr. M.K. Perwez, Adv.
versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with Inspector Virender Kumar, Crime Branch.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1362/2018 & Crl.M.A. 11252/2018 SUNNY Petitioner Through:
Mr. Prince Bhardwaj, Proxy Adv.
/ , versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELFII) Respondent Through:
Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with Inspector Virender Kumar,'
Crime Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER
% 20.07.2018 The names of the petitioners have come up during investigation into FIR No. 247/2017 involving offences punishable under Sections 363/366A/120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3, 4 and 16 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 11 of BAIL APPLN. 1412/2017 & conn.
Page I of 3 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
Prohibition of Child Maniage Act, 2006 being investigated by police station Ranhola since taken over by crime branch of Delhi Police. The prosecutnx at the relevant point of time is stated to have been 16 years 6 months, her date of birth having been described as 09.10.2000, she allegedly having been enticed and taken away from out of the lawful custody and care of the parents by petitioner Sunny, the other petitioner Rakesh Kumar being his father. It appears the prosecutrix and petitioner Sunny underwent some ceremony on 19.05.2017 whereby it is claimed by the petitioners that she had got married to said Sunny. The controversy had come up as subject matter of writ petition (Crl.) 1387/2017 which was heard by a division bench of this Court on 30.05.2017.
The said writ petition was withdrawn by the complainant's father for the reason the prosecutrix had appeared before another bench in writ petition (Crl.) 1590/2017. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the investigating officer, submits that the said other writ petition was also later withdrawn and disposed of accordingly. The investigation, however, has brought out that in the writ petition (Crl.) 1387/2017, copy of the Aadhar card of the prosecutrix was used indicating her date of birth to be 09.10.1998, it having been found upon investigation to be a forged and fabricated document. The role of the petitioner Rakesh Kumar in arranging the said fabricated document has come up during investigation.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the gravity of the offences involved, it is not a fit case for this Court to indulge the petitioners by grant of discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The petitions are dismissed. The interim order is vacated. BAIL APPLN. 1412/2017 & conn.
The petitioners are directed to present theniselves before the investigating officer forthwith.
K.GAU JULY 20, 2018 nk BAILAPPLN. 1412/2017 & conn.