High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of bail to the Petitioners in the event of arrest in FIR dated 11.01.2022 registered at Police Station Khyala for offences under Sections 376/376(2)(n)/323/342/34 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Brief Facts:
The prosecutrix has been separated from her husband since 2012, however, she has been residing at a flat which is the name of her husband. Prosecutrix received a call from a friend of her husband, Ranjit Singh Chauhan who informed her that both her children were with him and he asked her to come home quickly. The prosecutrix rushed home to find Ranjit Singh, along with four persons. Ranjit Singh asked the prosecutrix to vacate the home, and when she refused to do so, he threatened to harm her children. Out of fear, the prosecutrix silently went and sat in the same vehicle, and all three were taken to a house in Shyam Nagar. Ranjit Singh kept the prosecutrix and her children in that house till 30.05.2019. When the children were taking outside the house, Ranjit Singh would repeatedly rape the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was then taken to a house in Shivaji Enclave and kept there till 22.02.2020. It is stated that the house belonged to one Menka Chaturvedi, and that in this house, Gaurav Malik threatened the prosecutrix to have sexual relations with him. He would further beat the prosecutrix in order to make the Shivaji Enclave house in his and Ranjit Singh’s name. The prosecutrix escaped Ranjit Singh. The prosecutrix was later called to P.S. Khyala and then her statement was taken, on the basis of which the instant FIR was registered.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He stated that the prosecutrix had misbehaved with the landlady and police had been called, as a result of which the prosecutrix had been requested to vacate the property.
It was submitted that it was only due to the police intervention as well as the intervention of the Petitioner herein that the prosecutrix had been made to leave the property, and that for this reason, the prosecutrix had levelled false allegations against the Petitioner. It was submitted that the instant FIR against the Petitioner has only been lodged as a means to threaten and coerce the Petitioner to not press for the money that has been extorted by the prosecutrix.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the anticipatory bail applications of the Petitioners have been previously dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court and that their custodial interrogation would be required to unravel the gravity of the offences committed as well as to figure out the whereabouts of the other co-accused. It was submitted that the allegations in the FIR are of a serious nature and that the daughter of the prosecutrix was a minor when she was forced into prostitution by the landlady of the Shivaji Enclave flat wherein she was made to enter sexual relations with many men, including the Petitioners herein. It was submitted that in order to unravel the extent of the prostitution ring and keeping in mind the heinousness of the allegations in the FIR, anticipatory bail should be denied to both the Petitioners.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court found that Status Report on record indicates that the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the prosecutrix and the daughter corroborate the version of the allegations in the FIR. The statements further add that Petitioner had sexual intercourse with the minor daughter and that the landlady, Menka Chaturvedi, forced them into prostitution work. Furthermore, when the prosecutrix and the daughter refused to do the work, they were beaten by Menka Chaturvedi, along with the Petitioner and some police officials.
HC stated that no straitjacket formula can be employed while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail and the Court must apply its own mind to the question to decide whether a case has been made out for grant of such relief. HC further stated that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary in nature, and therefore, must be exercised only in situations wherein the Court is certain that there is no possibility of the accused evading arrest at a later point of time or fleeing from justice. Additionally, the Court must also be cognizant of the fact as to whether the accused is likely to utilise the shield anticipatory bail to repeat commission of the alleged offences.
HC observed that a prima facie reading of the FIR indicates that a prostitution ring had been established by the accused involving the prosecutrix and her minor daughter. Furthermore, the factum of the minor daughter allegedly being sexually exploited by various men is unconscionable and gives way to the possibility of the commission of the offences of child prostitution as well as the illegal trafficking of the prosecutrix and her daughter.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “In view of the gravity of the alleged offences and since the case involves complaints of rape of a minor, this Court is of the opinion that the instant case requires the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners. Custodial interrogation is further required to unravel the whereabouts of the co-accused as well as their role as the Status Report states that the Petitioners have been hesitant in divulging the relevant information regarding the co-accused who are allegedly absconding. In light of this, this Court does not deem it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners herein at this juncture.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Gaurav Malik v. State of NCT Delhi & Ors.
Case Details: BAIL APPLN. 401/2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
