The High Court of Delhi granted anticipatory bail to Petitioner Amit Gaur, a doctor accused of attempted rape and extortion. The Court ordered release on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety and cooperating with the investigation.
Petitioner released on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety.
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.
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
..... Petitioner
AMIT GAUR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Shukla, Mr. B.R. Pandey and Ms. Nupur Shukla, Advs. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK O R D E R % 18.01.2018
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecutrix is aged about 40 years and is a married lady. She is a distant relative of petitioner, who is a doctor. Prosecutrix approached the petitioner for her treatment of infertility. Subsequently, petitioner and prosecutrix started exchanging emails and became friends. At best, prosecutrix is a consenting party. In the hotel, identity record of the petitioner as well as prosecutrix was given. Prosecutrix has admitted in one of the emails (Annexure P-4) that petitioner had not done any forceful act. It is submitted that prosecutrix started blackmailing the petitioner, inasmuch as, forced him to deposit `48,000/- in
her account. Wife of the petitioner has also lodged FIR No. 1370/2017 under Sections 385/389 IPC at police station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh investigation whereof is pending. Prosecutrix has falsely implicated the petitioner on the allegations of rape and blackmailing.
Learned APP has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is contended that prosecutrix has stated in the FIR that petitioner had forcibly raped her after mixing some intoxicating material in her cold drink. Petitioner also took her nude photos in his mobile. Thereafter, he extracted about 2.55 lacs from the prosecutrix by extending threats that he would make her photos public. Petitioner has returned only 48,000/- to prosecutrix but rest of the amount has not been returned by him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner will cooperate in the investigation and handover emails as well as his mobile phone to Investigating Officer.
Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that in case of arrest petitioner be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO of the concerned police station. Petitioner shall, however,
cooperate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as
and when called upon to do so.
Bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JANUARY 18, 2018
ga
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail to the petitioner should be granted under Section 438 CrPC.
Whether the petitioner is eligible to furnish a personal bond along with surety for bail.
AMIT GAUR
STATE
A.K. PATHAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
