Muneeb Ahmad v. State (Gnct of Delhi)

ORDER %

26.10.2016 eousin of Tarique. The prosecutrix/complairiant is also related to Tarique; 'the sister n : It^is noted thatj ori the eomplairit of prpsecutrix/cohiplainaht ,

No:i97/2016i under Section 376 IPCj registered on 27'^ August, 2016 at PS: Chandni Mahal.; The FIR was registered 0n6 'day after the mairiage of { Muneeb. The prpsecutrijO'complainant alleged in the FIR that, , Muneeb^ developed friendly felatiohs with her and promised to marry her. He told ' her that he had already spbkeh to his family iri this regard. By extending a . . promise to marry/her,;hq develppeA physical relations with-her on several. ' - . occasions. On 26'^ August, 2016, proseCutrix narrated all the facts tp her parents arid, thereafter; they went to Muneeb's house to talk with his family; , . members about the wrfejf/r. However, they declined to marry Muneeb with ■her, iriasmuch informed that iMimeeb had performed with his cousin, : Sariya Faran, the same day ^ v Iri the said case, the petitioner Muneeb was granted anticipatory bail by the learried Additional Sessions Judge on 1®^ September, ;20161 However, the anticipatory; bail of the, petitioner has' been cancelled by the. learned , AdditipnahSessions Judge yide order dated 17 , October, 2016 passed iii bail , application Nbs.75228/20i6, in view ofthe registration of Subsequent FIR n NQj d8/2016, .under Sections 3^ IPC, registered-at j-PS:Janla Masjid, Delhi ph 17 September, 2016, on the complaiiit of . pfosecutrix. In this.FIR, the, prosecutrix: has alleged lhat ph 17^ September, 2016'she was returhing frphi hef aunt's: hpuse at about 5::30 'pm iarid;.when she' reached near ;Balak -Mata Centre; two boys, caught hold of her heck ': n the rape case. When she refused, to withdraw the cas.e,;]^^ ; bydier throat and slapped-her iahd also tpuched her chest. She rto away but ^ Murteeb and Tarique Panie after, her. They were carrying plastic thumbs .up v . bottles. Muneeb opened the bpttle, and, ppured, t^^^ ph. her,; which : smelled like kerbsehe pp. Thereafter, Muheeb pnd Tarique ran away. ; , \ . ; submits that the pietitiphers have ^ been Talsely implicated,; with a vie^ to, get the ariticipatoiy .bail ot the, , ; petitipner, Muneebj cancelled. No act has been assigned to . Tarique except V . that he was present with Muneeb. J^urieeb was in his office till 5:15. phi, .; senior officers, of the bank. Muneeb had suffered injuty in his - ieft hand, which was plastered on 16*^ September, 2016. Thus, Muneeb could not have caught hold of the neck of the prosecutrij^cbmplainant -and slapped her , simultaneously, as has been alleged by her. The medical prescriptions have' also been placed on record. ' v . ' It is fiirther. subimtted">^;t^^^^ the prosecutrix and her family turned inimical towards the petitioners and their family since they had refusedJto i. Therefore, V \ 5, who iiaVe tb ' approach this Court by wa:y of two writ petitions, that is, WP(Crl.) Nos 2649/2016 mid 262i5/20i6bh "7* September, 2016, much prioi to the lodging , of the second FIR; Only, theredftei*, as a counterblast, the present FIR has-v been lodged. : n Keeping in view the facts and circumstances; as npted aboVe, it is . brderedi that , petitioners Muneeb and Tarique, in case of their aire be n , released :on bail,;subj'ec^:to iheir Rirnishm^^ bonds in the sum of \Rs.50,000/- each, \yith oiie surety bf the like amount, to the satisfaction oT n in the.FIR No. 108/2016, PS: Jamh Masjid, Delhi; I \ >:•: nn i The order impugned in the criminal revision petition dated 17^^ October, 2016 is also set aside. The anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in FIR No. 197/2016 under Section 376 IPG, registered at PS: Chandni Mahal, is restored. All the three petitions are, disposed of in the above temis. Dasti. All the pending, applications are also disposed of. a.k:pathak,j OCTOBER 26, 2016 V

$-44, 59 & * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + , CRL.REV.P. 691/2016 & Crl. M.A. 16669/2016 MUNEEB AHMAD ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Mamta Chandra & Mr. Prateek . Yadav, Advocates . ' versus n STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent • , Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP ; with: + BAIL APPN. 2200/2016 &Crl.M.B. 1909/2016 MUNEEB AHMAD , ■.... Petitioner Through: : Ms. Mamta Chandra & Mr. Prateek Yadav, Advocates . " , versus .STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through:" Mr. Mukesh Kiimar, APP . , WITH : . + BAIL APPN. 2205/2016 &Crl. M.B. 16677/2016 ' ^ TARIQUEAIJAZ@TARIKH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Mamta Chandra & Mr. Prateek Yadav, Advocates versus ' . ■ ' : , . STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ' ..... Respondent ' Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP CORAM: , • HO^'BLE MR. JUSTICE A^K. PAXjaAK .