Arun Kumar Bharti v. State

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2611/2016 ARUN KUMAR BHARTI ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr.Praneet Pranav & Mr.Dhananjay Kumar, Advocates.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through :

Mr.Amit Gupta, APP with SI Geeta Yadav & SI Sonu Ram, PS Aman Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

O R D E R

% 16.03.2017 1.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.1219/2016 registered under Sections 323/376/313/328/34 IPC at PS Aman Vihar. Status report is on record.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. By an order dated 20.12.2016, the petitioner was granted interim protection and was directed to join the investigation as and when required. Undisputedly, the petitioner has joined the investigation since then.

3.

As per status report, the victim developed friendship with one Chandermani @ Sonu during her employment with ABC Path Lab. BAIL APPLN. 2611/2016

Physical relations took place between them albeit on the promise to marry and she became pregnant. It further reflects that allegedly on 02.11.2016 a quarrel took place between the prosecutrix and Sonu. Sonu's sister-in-law Kiran came at ABC Path Lab and offered her water to drink. As a result of which, she became unconscious. When she came to senses, she found that the petitioner, Dhananjay and Kiran were holding her.

4.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail and in the event of arrest, he be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating officer. He shall, however, join the investigation as and when required.

5.

The bail application stands disposed of.

S.P.GARG, J.

MARCH 16, 2017 / tr BAIL APPLN. 2611/2016