The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail given the serious charges of rape and the need for custodial interrogation to recover the money involved in the dispute.
Application for anticipatory bail is 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.
$~30
| * | IN THE HIGH COURT O | F DELHI AT NEW DELHI |
|---|---|---|
| + | BAIL APPLN. 218/2017 | |
| MANINDER AHLUWALIA | ..... Petitioner | |
| Through: versus |
Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar and Mr. Gaurav Sahdev, Advs. |
|
| STATE (NCT OF DELHI) | ..... Respondent | |
| Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A O R D E R |
Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State with W/SI Kailash, P.S. Janakpuri. .K. PATHAK |
|
| % 03.02.2017 |
By this application, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail. It is submitted that prosecutrix is more than 50 years of age having adult children. Disputes arose between the petitioner and prosecutrix on some money transactions. Petitioner has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix.
Learned APP for the State has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is contended that prosecutrix is a widow. She intended to marry again. Petitioner came in contact with prosecutrix through the website Shadi.com. Petitioner showed his willingness to meet the prosecutrix, who is a resident of Ludhiana. He called the prosecutrix to Delhi. Accordingly, prosecutrix came to Delhi to meet the petitioner. She was carrying `1.55 lacs with her. Petitioner promised the prosecutrix that he will marry her at Bangla Saheb Gurudwara and thereafter they would leave
for United States. He told her to get the money exchanged in dollars. Petitioner took money from the prosecutrix. Petitioner raped the prosecutrix twice at his residence. Petitioner took the prosecutrix to Jaipur on the pretext that his daughter wanted to meet her.
In Jaipur petitioner and prosecutrix checked in DODAS palace hotel. Petitioner told the prosecutrix that he was going to take his daughter. He left the room and did not return thereafter. Prosecutrix had to sell her ring to return to Delhi to lodge the FIR against the petitioner, as her complaint was not entertained by the Jaipur police on the pretext that rape was committed in Delhi. It is submitted that custodial interrogation is required, inasmuch as money is yet to be recovered.
Keeping in mind the above facts, I am of the view that petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Application is dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
FEBRUARY 03, 2017 ga
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a rape-implicated case.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted even if the prosecutrix may require custodial interrogation for money recovery.
Maninder Ahluwalia
State (NCT of Delhi)
K. Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
