ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
Danish Khan @ Saahil – Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Via Video-Conferencing:
1. The applicant, who is accused in case FIR No. 325/2020 dated 20.08.2020 registered under sections 376/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’, for short) at P.S.: Wazirabad, seeks anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”, for short).
2. Notice in this application was issued on 11.11.2020; whereupon status report dated 18.11.2020 has been filed by the State alongwith a copy of the prosecutrix’s statement dated 22.08.2020 recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.
3. The essential allegation against the applicant in the FIR is that on the false promise of marriage the applicant committed the offence under section 376 IPC upon the prosecutrix, apart from also committing offences as defined under sections 354D and 506 IPC. Though initially the FIR was registered only under sections 376/354D/506 IPC, subsequently, based upon statement dated 22.08.2020 recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (‘SCST Act’, for short) was also added against the applicant.
Maintainability of a section 438 Cr.P.C. application in view of
Manju Devi vs. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia & Ors.
Dinesh @ Buddha vs. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771
Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771
Nirbhay Singh and Another v. State of M.P. 1996(1) CRIMES 238(H.C)
Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 795
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.