High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 02 DEL CK 0139

Yogender Yadav vs State

Delhi High Court · Decided on 18 February 2014 · Citation: (2014) 1 JCC 653

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mukta Gupta, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1389 of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 382 words

Mukta Gupta, J.—By this petition the Petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 49/2013 under Sections 376/328/506 IPC registered at PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that though the allegations of rape are not substantiated as the aborted foetus of the Complainant was sent for DNA analysis and the same did not match to the DNA alleles of the Petitioner. Further there is delay in registration of the FIR as the alleged incident took place on 15th December, 2012 and the FIR was registered in January, 2013.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.

The allegations as set out in the FIR by the Complainant are that on 15th December, 2012 she returned from Indore after appearing in B.Ed. Examination. The Petitioner who is a friend received her at Nizamuddin Railway Station and accompanied her to her house at Village Rajpur, where no one else was present. She prepared tea and offered to the Petitioner. Thereafter she went to fetch water for the Petitioner. After she had tea however, she lost her senses. When she regained her senses she the found herself in naked condition. Later the Petitioner threatened her to upload her. obscene visuals on internet if she reports the incident to anyone. Finally, she reported the incident on 23rd January, 2013 and on ultrasound test and other examination she found that she was pregnant.

4.

The report of the FSL has been received as per which the DNA profile of the aborted foetus was similar to the DNA profile generated from the Complainant but the alleles in the DNA profile generated from the Petitioner were not accounted in the DNA profile of the foetus. Further despite the fact that eight witnesses have been examined, the Complainant is not forthcoming for her examination as though she was served for examination as witness for 3rd February, 2014 she failed to appear before the learned Trial Court.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I deem it fit to grant bail to the Petitioner. It is, therefore, directed that the Petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Petition is disposed of.