Dismissed

Imran v. the State NCT of Dlehi

Delhi HC12 Apr 2018BAIL APPLN./216/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences involving a minor under IPC and POCSO Act, the Delhi High Court disregarded claims of false implication and property dispute. Citing the gravity of the offence and the absence of a recorded statement from the prosecutrix, the court found insufficient grounds to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed citing gravity of offence and unrecorded statement of the minor prosecutrix.

Imran Vs the State NCT of Dlehi — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 216/2018

¶4

IMRAN ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through : Mr.Vikas Jain, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP. Ms.Seema Gola, counsel for the complainant. SI Arvind Kumar, PS Jaitpur.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 12.04.2018

¶11

The petitioner seeks regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 546/2017 registered under Sections 363/376D/344/328 IPC & Section 4 POCSO Act at PS Jaitpur. Status report is on record. 2. I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner is in custody since 19.11.2017, mother of the prosecutrix is in the habit of lodging false complaints. Earlier, she had lodged a complaint vide FIR No.127/2017 under Sections 363/366A/376D/34 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act in which the petitioner has been kept in column No.12. It is further urged that due to property dispute the present FIR has been lodged.

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

The prosecutrix is below 18 years. In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she attributed specific and definite role to the petitioner along with others. The petitioner’s wife has also lodged FIR No. 139/2017 under Sections 354/506/508/34 IPC at PS Jaitpur against the prosecutrix’ father Chand Mohamad. Nusrat Khan - one of the accused in the present proceedings has also lodged an FIR No.487/2017 dated 21.09.2017 against the prosecutrix’ father under Sections 323/354/354B/506/509 IPC. No credible document has come on record to show as to what property dispute exists between the parties.

¶14

Bail application moved by the petitioner before the Trial Court was got dismissed as withdrawn on 05.01.2018.

¶15

Considering the gravity of the offence and the serious allegations leveled by the prosecutrix and particularly when her statement has yet not been recorded, no sufficient ground for grant of bail.

¶16

The bail application is dismissed.

¶17

S.P.GARG, J.

¶18

APRIL 12, 2018 / tr

¶19

Page 2 of 2

Imran v. the State NCT of Dlehi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran v. the State NCT of Dlehi

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

Jyoti Ahirwar & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Suresh Singh Vs State

Guddu Yadav Vs State

Nagma Vs State & Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Magnani Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Babu Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi