Allowed

Suresh Kumar Gupta v. State of Delhi

Delhi HC18 Oct 2024BAIL APPLN./2452/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC, the Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused of rape against his daughter-in-law. The Court acknowledged the delay in FIR registration but noted the prolonged custody and examination of the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount.

Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Delhi — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 2452/2024

¶4

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Kedar Yadav, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State with SI Namita PS Sangam Vihar

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R % 18.10.2024

¶11

The present petition has been filed seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 69/2022 registered at PS Sangam Vihar under Sections 498a/406/34. The chargesheet has been filed u/s 376/354/498A/406 IPC.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged 55, has been in custody since 20.01.2023. The complainant is stated to be the petitioner's daughter-in-law, who was married to the petitioner's son, Dheeraj Kumar. Learned counsel during his submissions has pointed out that there is a delay of 22 days in lodging the complaint with the police and has argued that the trial is likely to take some time and the testimony of the prosecutrix has already been recorded. Thus, it has been submitted that the petitioner should be granted bail.

¶13

Learned APP for the State has opposed the bail application and stated

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:32:40

¶15

that the prosecutrix was duly informed by the investigating officer but chose not to appear in Court. The APP highlights that the allegations against the petitioner are serious, as he is accused of committing rape on his daughter-in-law. It is further contended that the petitioner if released on bail, may threaten or intimidate the prosecutrix.

¶16

The complaint was initially made before the CAW Cell on 24.11.2020, culminating in the registration of the present FIR on 17.01.2022. The complainant has alleged multiple instances of dowry demands, infidelity by her husband, and mental and physical torture. She also alleged that on 02.11.2020, while she was asleep in her room, the petitioner forcibly raped her and threatened to evict her from the house. The prosecutrix has reiterated the allegation of rape in her testimony before the Court.

¶17

While it is acknowledged that there was a delay of approximately 22 days, the petitioner has already in custody for more than a year since 20.01.2023. Since the prosecutrix has already been examined and trial may take long time, the petitioner is admitted to bail furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial court, subject to the verification of address and subject to the following further conditions:

¶18

a) the petitioner shall regularly appear before the IO/trial court as and when directed;

¶19

b) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, intimidate or tamper with any person acquainted with the facts of the case;

¶20

¶21

c) the petitioner shall remain available on the address, to be given to the IO and shall not leave the country without the permission of the learned Trial Court;

¶22

d) In case of change of residential address and/or mobile number, the petitioner shall intimate the same to the Investigating Officer/ Court concerned by way of an affidavit.

¶23

With the above directions, the application is disposed of.

¶24

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.

¶25

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J

¶26

OCTOBER 18, 2024 Pallavi /SM

¶27

Suresh Kumar Gupta v. State of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Gupta v. State 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

Rajesh Breja Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Riya & Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Smt. Neelam Mittal & Anr. Vs Smt. Sakshi Dua

Juber Khan Vs the State

Adil Khan Vs the State

Ajmal Hussain Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),Though SHO P.S. Special Cell