Himanshu Meena v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi

ORDER

07.1L2017 By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of CriminalProcedure(hereinafterreferredas "Cr.PC."),the petitioner seeks grant of Anticipatory Bail in FIR No. 0237/2017 under Section376 ofthe IndianPenal Code (hereinafterreferredas"I.P.C.") registered at Farsh Bazar, Police Station. The caseoftheprosecutionisthatthe complainantwas workinginthe company of a person namely Ashwin where the petitioner was on visitingterms. That aftermakingproposalof marriage,the petitioner made physical relations with the complainant.. That on 03.11.2016, the petitioner and his family members came to the house of the complainantand fixed the marriage by performingthe ceremonyof Page 1 of3 'Roka\ Thereafterthe petitionerstarted avoiding the complainant and threatenedto kill her in case she made any complaint. Feeling aggrievedand cheated,complainantfiledthe presentFIR.

¶3On the last date of hearing, Mr. Pradeep Teotia, learned counsel for the petitionersubmittedthat the petitionerand the complainanthave solemnized marriage and the matter was fixed for today for verification of the marriage.

¶4Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State submits that verification of the marriage has been done and, as per the verification report the petitioner and the complainant have solemnized marriage on

30.10.2017 at Neeli Chhatri Mandir, Prachin Neeli Chhatri, Sanatan Dharam Vivah Pandit Trust, YamunaBazar, Delhi-06and placed on record the marriage certificate as well as the photographs of the marriage.

¶5Ms. Ruchi, complainant is also present, who affirmed the factum of marriage and gave her no objectionfor granting anticipatorybail to the petitioner.

¶6Keeping in view that the petitioner and the complainant have solemnizedmarriage,I find the presentcase fit to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant,subjectto the followingconditions: ,

i) That applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer; BAILAPPLN. 1279/2017 Page2 of3 r s

ii) That the applicantshall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi without the prior permission of the Trial Court;

iii) That the applicantshall not directlyor indirectly,make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the present case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority. It is made clear that violation of any of the above terms and conditions,the State is at libertyto seek cancellationof anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Application stands disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master. NOVEMBER 07, 2017 gr// SANOTA DHiNGRA SEHGAL, J BAILAPPLN. 1279/2017 Page 3 of3

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1279/2017 % 1. HIMANSHU MEENA Through: Versus STATE Through: BAIL APPLN. 1279/2017 Petitioner Mr. Pradeep Teotia with Mr. Akash Verma, Advocates. Respondent Ms. Anita Abraham, APP with 10, Avneesh Kumar, SI, PS. Farsh Bazar., Ms. Ruchi, Complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL