Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 777/2021
GAURAV KHURANA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate
STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State with
SI Amit Kumar, P.S. Anand Parbat
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 234/2020
registered under Sections 323/201/365/367/368/377/506/34 IPC and
Sections 6/10 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Anand Parbat, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely
implicated in the present case. He submits that initially the FIR was
registered under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC on the statement of the father
of the victim. It is submitted that though the alleged incident is stated to
have occurred on 25.08.2020 however, the FIR was registered on
26.08.2020. Learned counsel further submits that a bare reading of the FIR
would show that it did not contain allegation relating to offence under
Section 377 IPC. It is stated that the particulars relating to the offence
punishable under Section 377 IPC were given for the first time when the
victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Lastly, it is
submitted that the applicant is in custody since 20.10.2020 and is not
involved in any other case.
3. Learned APP for the State duly assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail
application. He submits that the first MLC was conducted on the date of
incident itself i.e., 25.08.2020. He however, on instructions, confirms that
the applicant is not involved in any case.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid and the fact that no allegation with
respect to Section 377 IPC was made in the initial complaint lodged by the
father of the complainant, and the allegation with respect to Section 377 IPC
and Sections 6/10 of the POCSO Act came only for the first time in the
statement recorded of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on
07.09.2020, it is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail
subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail
Superintendent/Duty M.M. and subject to the following further conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without prior
permission of the concerned Court.
(ii) The applicant shall remain available on mobile number:
8588031293, which he undertakes to keep operational at all times
during the pendency of the trial.
(iii) In case of change of residential address or contact details, the
applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned I.O. as well
as to the concerned Court.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear before the concerned Court
during the pendency of the trial.
(v) The applicant shall not directly/indirectly try to get in touch
with the complainant or any other prosecution witnesses or tamper
with the evidence.
5. The bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
6. Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent electronically for information.
7. Copy of the order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
8. Needless to state that nothing observed hereinabove shall amount to
an expression on the merits of the case and shall not have a bearing on the
trial of the case.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
JULY 20, 2021
Click here to check corrigendum, if any