Allowed

Ankit Mann v. the Govt of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC10 Jan 2018BAIL APPLN./1490/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding allegations of rape, the Court held that the petitioner, after participating in the investigation, was entitled to bail conditional upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

Ankit Mann Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi — Anticipatory Bail | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 1490/2017 ANKIT MANN ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Chander M Maini, Mr. B.K. Wadhwa and Mr. Mayank Maini, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Dr. M.P. Singh, APP for State with SI Sumitra Sharma, .S. Rajouri Garden.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK O R D E R % 10.01.2018

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecutrix is a grown up educated woman of 23 years of age. Petitioner is 27 years old. Petitioner and prosecutrix were in relationship. After their relationship became sour, prosecutrix has given the colour of rape to their consensual relationship. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. As per the prosecutrix, first incident took place in the month of November, 2015; whereas second incident took place on 7^th January, 2017.

¶9

Learned APP submits that petitioner and prosecutrix became friends. In the month of November, 2015, petitioner took the prosecutrix to his house and forcibly established physical relations with her. When prosecutrix told

¶10

the petitioner she would make a complaint against him, petitioner promised to marry her. On 7^th January, 2017 petitioner called the prosecutrix in his house and again had forcibly sex with her. He reiterated that he would marry her. However, subsequently he backed out from his promises. Offence is serious in nature, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Vide order dated 2^nd August, 2017, petitioner was granted interim protection from the arrest. The said protection is still continuing. Petitioner has participated in the investigation and is not required for further investigation. Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances, 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.

¶12

Bail application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶13

Dasti.

¶14

A.K. PATHAK, J.

¶15

JANUARY 10, 2018 ga

Ankit Mann v. the Govt of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Mann v. the Govt 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeru Khullar Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Mohd Nawab Vs State

Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Devender Kumar & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sameer Vs State

Nakkan Khan Vs State (Nct of Delhi )