The Delhi High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail. The bench held that no ground existed for bail given the FIR and Section 164 statement indicating the applicant locked the door while the sexual offence was committed inside against the prosecutrix.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected.
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.
$~27
SHAKILA BANO ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.K. Perwez & Mr. J.A. Chaudhary, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF DELHI (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
O R D E R
% 10.05.2018
Submissions have been made on behalf of either side.
It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that she has been falsely implicated in the instant case and that she has no role to play in the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in relation to which the allegations are against one Afsar and that the only allegations against the applicant are to the effect that she was standing outside the door of the house which she had allegedly bolted when the offence was being committed by the co-accused.
It has further been submitted on behalf of the applicant that she is 65 years of age and that there are no other previous adverse antecedents against her and that a settlement has since been arrived at between the prosecutrix and the applicant and other persons in the
instant case. It is sought to be contended that the offences alleged against the applicant would be only under Section 323/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and that the offences against her are bailable.
On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the applicant is absconding and that the proceedings under Section 82 & 83 of the Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant qua which it has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is willing to join the investigation of the case.
Without any observations on the merits or demerits of the case, on a perusal of this FIR and the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix which states inter alia to the effect that the applicant had allegedly bolted the door at the time of the commission of the alleged offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by a co-accused within the room where the prosecutrix was bolted by the applicant , there is no ground for grant of anticipatory bail.
The application is rejected.
ANU MALHOTRA, J
MAY 10, 2018 NC
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when the applicant is alleged to have locked the door while the offence was being committed inside against the prosecutrix.
Whether the applicant's willingness to join investigation or the settlement reached influences the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether there is ground to grant anticipatory bail under the facts proven by the FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement.
SHAKILA BANO
STATE OF DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
