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.
(VIA VIDEO-CONFERENCING)
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1094/2021
PRAVEEN GUPTA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Ankit Gupta and Ms. Arunima Goel,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State with WSI Isha.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
% 28.07.2021
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C
seeking bail in case FIR No. 121/2020 under Section 354 IPC and Section 8
of POCSO Act registered at P.S. K.N. Katju Marg.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that on 20.4.2020 a PCR call was
received at P.S.K.N.Katju Marg, and it was stated by the caller that her
daughter, who was aged about 14 years had told her that husband of lady
tutor has mis-behaved with her. On 21.4.2020 a written complaint was also
given alleging that the victim has been mis-behaved by the petitioner who is
the husband of her lady tutor. The statement of the victim under Section
164 Cr.P.C was also recorded on 23.4.2020 wherein she has supported the
allegations made by her in the FIR.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:29.07.2021
18:56
(VIA VIDEO-CONFERENCING)
3. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that
there is some variance in the contents of the FIR and statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that despite the order of ASJ, IO
has not collected the CCTV Footage of the house of the petitioner as the
victim never came to the house of the petitioner who used to take tuition
from his wife. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that the
mother of the victim has been making threatening calls to the wife of the
petitioner w.e.f. 26.3.2020 and at no point of time any call was made by the
wife of the petitioner or the petitioner who was on interim bail on two
occasions. It is further submitted that while the petitioner was on interim
bail, he never contacted the victim or tried to tamper with the evidence. It is
further submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.4.2020 and
chargesheet has already been filed.
4. On the other hand, learned APP submitted that the allegations are
serious in nature.
5. In the instant case, there are no allegations of any tampering or threats
to the witnesses from the side of the petitioner or from his family members
when he was on interim bail. The chargesheet has already been filed. I
have perused the FIR and statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the
variance in the two would be seen during the course of trial.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted
to the petitioner is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
The application stands disposed of.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
JULY 28, 2021/ib
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:29.07.2021
18:56
