Under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the court held that the Statement of the Prosecutrix supported the prosecution version, reiterating that no prima facie case for interim anticipatory protection existed, and dismissed the application.
The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
..... Petitioner Through Mr.Ghanshyam Mishra, Advocate. versus
THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)
..... Respondent Through Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State along with SI Jasbir Malik.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R
% 07.01.2016
Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been filed on record. It supports the version of the prosecution. This Court in its first order dated 18.8.2015 had made a prima facie recording that no ground is made out for interim anticipatory protection. This Court reiterates this view again today.
Application dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
JANUARY 07, 2016 ndn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted.
Whether prima facie grounds for relief have been made out.
SAHID KHAN
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
INDERMEET KAUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
