Allowed

Swami Santoshbnand v. State (Gnctd)

Delhi HC9 May 2017BAIL APPLN./578/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition challenging arrest in an FIR for affray, outraging modesty, and false implication, the court noted multiple cross-cases between the parties. Deeming it fit to prevent escalation due to mutual hostility, the court granted anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including joining investigation.

Swami Santoshbnand Vs State (Gnctd) — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 578/2017 SWAMI SANTOSHBNAND ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. S.P. Sharma, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE (GNCTD)

¶6

..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP with SI Abhishek Kumar PS I.P. Estate. Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Adv. for complainant.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶8

O R D E R % 09.05.2017

¶9

By the present petition the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.30/2017 under Sections 354/341/509/34 IPC registered at PS I.P. Estate.

¶10

The allegations of the complainant in the above-noted FIR were that on 7^th February, 2017 when she came to her house which is near the Rajghat Power Station the petitioner and one Om Sai caught hold of her and started abusing. They further outraged her modesty.

¶11

Since the petitioner in the present petition alleged enmity and false implication, a status report was called for. As per the status report there are a number of cross-cases between the parties. On the complaint of the BAIL APPLN. 578/2017 page 1 of 2

¶12

husband of the complainant FIR No.202/2016 has been registered against the petitioner and on the complaint of the petitioner FIR No.203/2016 has been registered against the husband of the complainant and other persons. Further on the complaint of the associates of the petitioner Ram Manohar Sharma, another FIR has also been registered against the husband of the complainant.

¶13

Considering the number of cross-cases registered against each party by the two factions, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is therefore directed that in the event of arrest the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/ SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that the petitioner will join investigation as and when directed and will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court concerned and in case of change of address the same will be intimated by way of an affidavit to the investigating officer and the Court concerned.

¶14

Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

¶15

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶16

MAY 09, 2017 ‘ga’

¶17

page 2 of 2

¶18

BAIL APPLN. 578/2017

Swami Santoshbnand v. State (Gnctd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Santoshbnand v. State (Gnctd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Isha Rashid Vs State

Arvind Kumar & Anr. Vs State & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Vs the State & Ors.

Mahtab Singh & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Sachin Sharma Vs State & Anr.

Ashok Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)