Dismissed

Sh. Jagdish v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi )

Delhi HC13 Dec 2017BAIL APPLN./2333/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects a bail application filed by Jagdish, a maternal uncle of a 14-year-old minor child. Despite allegedgrossvariations between the FIR and the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the prosecutrix, the court found no ground for bail due to corroborating allegations of sexual assault under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and the pending examination of the prosecutrix.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sh. Jagdish Vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi ) — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 2333/2017

¶4

SH. JAGDISH

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Through Mr. M.K. Srivastava, Advocate

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI )

¶9

..... Respondent Through Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the State WSI Maya Devi, PS Nihar Vihar

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 13.12.2017

¶13

The status report is on the record.

¶14

Arguments submitted on behalf of the either side.

¶15

On behalf of the applicant it has been submitted that there are gross variations in the submissions made in FIR and the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the prosecutrix inasmuch as whereas in the FIR there are allegations of alleged sexual harassment and molestation of the minor child, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there are further allegations made by the prosecutrix in relation to the accused having allegedly put a knife on the stomach of the prosecutrix and of having slapped her and of her having threatened to kill her which were not there in the FIR and it is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that the prosecutrix was tutored

¶16

by her parents. It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is in custody since the last six months and that the chargesheet has been filed and no useful purpose will be served by the further incarceration of the applicant.

¶17

On behalf of the State, the application is vehemently opposed submitting, inter alia, that the prosecutrix is yet to be examined and that in the FIR and in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there are allegations of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 12 of POCSO Act.

¶18

Without making any observations on the merits or demerits of the case, taking into account the factum of the submissions made in the FIR and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix there are allegations against the applicant made by the minor child aged 14 years to the effect that the applicant is her relative i.e. maternal uncle of the minor child who sexually assaulted her which corroborate each other coupled with the factum also that the prosecutrix is yet to be examined during the course of the trial, there is no ground for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶19

The application is thus dismissed.

¶20

ANU MALHOTRA, J

¶21

DECEMBER 13, 2017 aj

Sh. Jagdish v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi )

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sh. Jagdish v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi )

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rafiq Ahmad Sheikh & Anr. Vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Sachin Vs the State & Ors.

Vasudev Prasad Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Smt Jaspreet Kaur Chahal Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Suresh Vs State

Vijay @ Chhotu Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi