Ran Singh vs.state

Ran Singh vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 31, 2018

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1219038

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1219038
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Oct 31, 2018
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ran Singh

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....section 376 of the ipg registered at police station karol bagh (now transferred to police station prasad nagar).2. learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. it is, in fact, a case of ‘honey trap’. it is contended that the whatsapp conversation shows that the petitioner was lured by the complainant. bail appln. 614/2018 page 1 of 3 3. it is contended that as per the fir, the allegations against the petitioner are that the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the petitioner to a hotel and thereafter it is alleged that the petitioner indulged in forceful activity.4. learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that on registration of the fir, a departmental inquiry was instituted as petitioner is a police officer. on 17.05.2018 prosecutrix had appeared before the departmental committee and gave her statement in which she stated that the physical relation between the petitioner and prosecutrix was with her consent. later she realized her mistake and went to the police station to lodge a complaint. it is stated by her that she wanted to browbeat the petitioner.5. directions were issued on 09.08.2018 to the investigating officer to verify the alleged statement given by the prosecutrix on 17.05.2018 before the departmental committee.6. learned addl. pp, under instructions from the investigating officer, submits that the statement is verified and there is nothing on record to show that she retracted from her said statement.7. the petitioner was granted interim protection on 20.03.2018, subject to his joining investigation. learned addl. pp submits that the petitioner did join the investigation as and when was required by the investigating officer. she submits that investigation is complete and bail appln. 614/2018 page 2 of 3 the chargesheet is in the process of finalization and the same shall be submitted in court.8. without commenting upon the merits of the case and on perusal of.....

Full Judgment

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:

31. 10.2018 % BAIL APPLN. 614/2018 RAN SINGH STATE Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner

: versus ........ Petitioner

..... Respondent Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. D.K. Rai, Mr. Upendra Kumar Nagar, Mr. Manish and Mr. Ajay P. Tushir, Advs. Ms. Meenakshi Dahia, Addl. PP for the State with Inspr. Pushp Lata, PS Prasad Nagar : For the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA % ORDER

3110.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.108/2018 under Section 376 of the IPG registered at Police station Karol Bagh (now transferred to Police Station Prasad Nagar).

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is, in fact, a case of ‘honey trap’. It is contended that the WhatsApp conversation shows that the petitioner was lured by the complainant. BAIL APPLN. 614/2018 Page 1 of 3 3. It is contended that as per the FIR, the allegations against the petitioner are that the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the petitioner to a hotel and thereafter it is alleged that the petitioner indulged in forceful activity.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that on registration of the FIR, a departmental inquiry was instituted as petitioner is a Police Officer. On 17.05.2018 prosecutrix had appeared before the Departmental Committee and gave her statement in which she stated that the physical relation between the petitioner and prosecutrix was with her consent. Later she realized her mistake and went to the police station to lodge a complaint. It is stated by her that she wanted to browbeat the petitioner.

5. Directions were issued on 09.08.2018 to the Investigating Officer to verify the alleged statement given by the prosecutrix on 17.05.2018 before the Departmental Committee.

6. Learned Addl. PP, under instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that the statement is verified and there is nothing on record to show that she retracted from her said statement.

7. The petitioner was granted interim protection on 20.03.2018, subject to his joining investigation. Learned Addl. PP submits that the petitioner did join the investigation as and when was required by the Investigating Officer. She submits that investigation is complete and BAIL APPLN. 614/2018 Page 2 of 3 the chargesheet is in the process of finalization and the same shall be submitted in Court.

8. Without commenting upon the merits of the case and on perusal of the records, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

9. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.

10. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J OCTOBER31 2018 ‘rs’ BAIL APPLN. 614/2018 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Ran Singh vs State Same Subject Criminal