Application seeking modification of a prior bail order dated 18.03.2025, to correct the appearance of counsel for the petitioner in paragraphs 7 and 12. The court allowed the application for the reasons stated and disposed of it.
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.
$~68
ASHOK@RAKESH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tushar Rohmetra, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahlot, APP for the State with SI Pinki, PS Sultanpuri.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R
% 25.03.2025
CRL.M.A. 9038/2025 ( for modification of order dated 18.03.2025 )
“Mr. Pradeep Rana, along with Mr. Tushar Rohmetra, Mr. Bharat Gupta, Mr. Ankit Rana, and Ms. Riya Rana, Advocates for the petitioner.”
7. Mr. Pradeep Rana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. He points out contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC vis-a-viz statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. He submits that in her first statement recorded under
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 28/03/2025 at 12:21:37
Section 161 CrPC, the victim stated that accused Abhishek and Ravi both physically assaulted her and later in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, she states that except Abhishek rest of the accused persons sexually assaulted her. He, therefore, contends that the testimony of the victim cannot be relied upon.
12. He submits that petitioner is in custody for over six years and the prosecution has cited as many as 26 witnesses and till date only 21 witnesses have been examined. The petitioner has clean antecedents and he is not a flight risk. According to Mr. Rana, the trial is going to be a protracted one and considering the long custody of the petitioner, he may be enlarged on bail.”
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MARCH 25, 2025 DU
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 28/03/2025 at 12:21:37
Ashok@Rakesh
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Amit Mahajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
