Allowed

Harku Mandal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC1 Feb 2017BAIL APPLN./2518/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused of rape and sexual harassment under IPC and POCSO. The court noted the petitioner's long detention and directed release against a personal bond. Conditions included prohibiting travel abroad and requiring address intimation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties of like amount subject to conditions.

Harku Mandal Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 2518/2016

¶4

HARKU MANDAL ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Vivek Sood, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 01.02.2017

¶10

By the present petition, the petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No.727/2014 under Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’).

¶11

The allegations of the complainant in the FIR are that in January 2014 she came to Delhi from Jharkhand and stayed with her uncle at Tuglakabad Village. The petitioner was known to her uncle and arranged a job for her at Gurgaon where she worked for three months. In April, 2014, the petitioner took her to his house at Gurgaon where he raped her by putting off her clothes and when she tried to cry he threatened her. Thereafter, the petitioner again arranged a job for her at Gurgaon. On 13^th July, 2014 she came to the house of her uncle and disclosed about the incident to her uncle and aunt whereafter the above noted FIR was registered.

¶12

After the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she was medically examined, charge sheet was filed. Charge for

¶13

offences punishable under Section 376/506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act has been framed against the petitioner. During the course of trial, out of 18 witnesses, 7 witnesses including the prosecutrix have been examined.

¶14

Learned APP for the State on instructions submits that after charge sheet was filed, further verification was conducted in respect of the age of the prosecutrix and it was revealed that her date of birth was 25^th February, 1996 as per the school admission register in the school she first attended. Thus, supplementary charge sheet was filed. Learned Trial Court is in the process of examining the concerned witnesses to ascertain the age of the prosecutrix.

¶15

Needless to note only after examining the relevant witnesses it can be determined whether the charge for offence under Section 4 POCSO Act can be maintained or not.

¶16

Considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for 2 years and 7 months and the prosecutrix has already been examined, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner. It is therefore directed that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court, further subject to the condition that the petitioner will not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned and will intimate change of his residential address, if any, by way of an affidavit.

¶17

Petition is disposed of.

¶18

Order dasti.

¶19

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶20

FEBRUARY 01, 2017 ‘v mittal’

Harku Mandal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harku Mandal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaushal Kumar Vs State

Vikas Pathak & Ors. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi ) & Anr.

Naresh Kumar Jain Vs State & Ors.

State (Gnct of Delhi) Vs Fakrey Alam

B C Sharma & Anr. Vs State of Delhi & Anr.

Dinesh Kumar & Ors. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)