The High Court of Delhi dismissing the applicant's appeal and the original bail application. The court found that custodial interrogation was necessary as the investigation was in its initial stages and found the petitioner was involved in sending obscene messages.
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.
$~21
MANMEET SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms Anu Narula, Advocate (DHCLSC). versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms Kusum Dhalla, APP for State with Insp. Santosh Chauhan, Crime Branch. Dr M. K. Gehlaut, Advocate for Ms Alka/complainant.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 07.01.2020
CRL.M.A. 108/2020
BAIL APPLN. 11/2020
Counsellor and the concerned parties agreed to seek a divorce by mutual consent. A decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted and that terminated the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the complainant. It is the petitioner’s case that in terms of the settlement arrived at with the complainant, the complainant was also required to withdraw the FIR that was lodged by her in view of the disputes. However, the complainant did not cooperate with the same and has not fulfilled her obligations under their mutual agreement.
permanent address and is habitually changing his address.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
JANUARY 07, 2020/MK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in connection with offences of sending obscene and threatening messages.
Whether the petitioner joining the investigation entitled him to anticipatory bail despite initial difficulties in tracing him.
Manmeet Singh
The State
Vibhu Bakhu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
