* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPN. No. 502/2012
Date of Decision : 23.05.2012
MANISH JINDAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. M.K. Choudhary, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This is an application for the grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No.112/2012 under Sections 376/506 IPC registered by PS:Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Kavita Jain, d/o, Subhash Chand Jain, r/o H.No. Subhash Mohalla, Sonepat, Haryana, lodged a complaint on 3.9.2011, on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR was registered. The allegations in the complaint are that the prosecutrix is a married woman and in the year 2008, she was residing in House No.23, Gali No.3, Main Shanker Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. The accused, Manish Jindal, had purchased a plot adjoining to the house of the prosecutrix. He started borrowing the household articles from the prosecutrix and had Bail Appn. 502/2012 Page 1 of 6 also taken electricity connection from her house. It is alleged by her that on one day, when her husband and the children had gone to attend the engagement ceremony of some relation, the accused came to her house and gave her some mithai (prasad) on the representation that it was the offering of the God. The said mithai (prasad) was laced with intoxicant. On consuming the said mithai (prasad), the prosecutrix fell unconscious and the accused raped her. When the prosecutrix gained her consciousness, she found herself naked and she protested, but the accused threatened and terrorized her. From the year 2008 to 2011, she was raped by the accused on 3-4 occasions. In the year 2011, the prosecutrix became pregnant and because of this, the accused gave her abortion pills, which she consumed, as a consequence of which her health condition deteriorated. It has now been stated that the husband of the prosecutrix has deserted her and further that she was being blackmailed by the accused to submit to him physically, as the accused was claiming that he was having the video recording/clipping of the prosecutrix, which, if shown to the public at large, will spoil her image completely. After the registration of the FIR, on the basis of this complaint, investigations were carried out Bail Appn. 502/2012 Page 2 of 6 and the statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein she had supported this story. The statements of the children of the prosecutrix were also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., who have corroborated the statement of their mother. As a matter of fact, the children of the prosecutrix had specifically stated in their statements that on one occasion, the accused not only beat them mercilessly, but also confined them in a room and subjected their mother to physical abuse.
3. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused, has very vehemently argued for the grant of anticipatory bail. It has been contended by him that the FIR does not give the date, time or the month in which the rape had allegedly been committed. It has been contended by him that as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix was a married woman and, therefore, she had a consensual sexual relation with the petitioner. In this regard, it has been contended that the petitioner is in possession of various SMSs received from the prosecutrix, which belies her claim, as if she was subjected to rape. It has also been denied by the learned Senior Counsel that the accused is in possession of any video recording/clipping or the photographs, which may be said to Bail Appn. 502/2012 Page 3 of 6 be objectionable and belonging to the prosecutrix. It has been stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Siddhiram Satlingappa Mhetre -vs- State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2011 (I) SCC 694, has clearly laid down that it is not necessary to arrest the accused in each and every case. The Police must give the justified reasons for the arrest. It has been contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the incident pertains to the year 2008, while as the denial of the bail to the accused as on date will not only be harsh, but also bring disrepute to the accused. Therefore, the accused be enlarged on bail, as he is prepared to join the investigation. It has also been offered by him that the accused is prepared to surrender the SMSs which the prosecutrix had sent to the accused which will belie the case of the Prosecution. Hence, it has been stated that the petitioner be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused on the ground that this is one of the rare cases where a prosecutrix has been subjected to sexual assault by an accused in the presence of her children, apart from physically beating to her children. In this regard, the statements of the children of the prosecutrix have already been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned APP has Bail Appn. 502/2012 Page 4 of 6 contended that this is a fit case where the custodial interrogation of the accused is required to be done, which will bring the correct facts on record. The allegations against the accused are stated to be very serious.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned APP. The allegations against the accused are very serious in nature, inasmuch as he has not only first gained the trust of an innocent woman, but also betrayed the same by subjecting her to physical assault and rape, even if it is assumed that it was a case of consensual sex. The petitioner has also allegedly blackmailed her to submit to him by contending that he has video recording/clipping and the video recording of the prosecutrix. This, in my view, is a very serious offence, inasmuch as not only has it caused mental and the physical trauma, but has also spoiled the matrimonial life of the prosecutrix. It has transpired that the husband of the prosecutrix has already initiated divorce proceedings against her. I feel that this is a fit case where the custodial interrogation of the accused ought to be done. So far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddhiram Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) is concerned, it does not lay down that the anticipatory bail Bail Appn. 502/2012 Page 5 of 6 should be given to all the accused persons.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, I am not inclined to admit the accused to anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J MAY 23, 2012 tp Bail Appn. 502/2012 Page 6 of 6