Anil Kumar Malik vs Delhi Administration
1993 Latest Caselaw 372 Del

JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J.

(1) In the present case Fir was registered against the petitioner under Sections 376/384/506/34 Indian Penal Code at the instance of the complainant, namely, Smt. Kusum Malik.

(2) Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that before her marriage with Shri O.P. Malik in January 1981, she had exchanged some correspondence with the petitioner Anil Kumar Malik, who happens to be the cousin brother of her husband. She has alleged that in the year 1986 by showing those letters, the petitioner started black-milling her on the threat that in case she would not submit to his lust, he would show those letters to her husband. The complainant has alleged that under the aforesaid threats,she continued submitting to his lust for many years and during this period he even brought certain other persons to satisfy their lust with her. In her complaint she further alleged that somewhere in August 1992 her husband got suspicious and she told each and everything to her husband. She has further alleged that her husband got great shock to hear all this and he became unconscious and had to be taken to St. Stephens' Hospital and again after 8/10 days, he was taken to the said hospital. The complainant has further alleged that on 14/10/1992 she decided to kill the petitioner and thereafter to commit suicide but she could not succeed in this task. She has further alleged that thereafter the matter was discussed with the elders and the elders advised her and her husband not to report the matter to the police as it will affect their reputation. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that inspite of this the petitioner and his father gave beating to the husband of the complainant on 8/01/1993 when he had gone to the house of the petitioner to remove his goods and in the meanwhile the police came there and took the members of both the parties to the police station and allowed them to go at 9.30 p.m. At the police station it came to light that the petitioner and his father had lodged many false reports against the complainant's husband and in the present complaint police was requested that the complainant and her husband be saved from the petitioner and his father and action be taken in accordance with law.

(3) Mr. Grover, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the statement of the complainant and submitted that the complainant herself has admitted that the fact regarding her alleged rape by the petitioner was disclosed by her to her husband in August 1992 but the report was lodged with the police by the complainant on 16/01/1993. He submitted thus there is substantial delay of about five months in lodging the report for which there is no satisfactory explanation. He submitted that in fact the complainant had lodged the report only after she came to know that certain reports have already been lodged by the petitioner. He drew my attention to the reports dated 5/11/1992 and 9th, 11/01/1993 wherein it is alleged that the complainant was sent by her husband with an intention to murder the petitioner. He said that this fact has been even admitted by the complainant in her complaint that she tried to kill the petitioner but shefailed. Learned Counsel also submitted that the complaint was filed with a view to counter the complaints filed by the petitioner.

(4) The learned Counsel further contended that in the present case the complainant is a married lady having three children and there is no independent evidence to corroborate her allegations.

(5) Learned Counsel also submitted that though the complainant has alleged that the petitioner had brought certain other persons to satisfy their lust but no other person has been arrested in the case so far. He also drew my attention to the statement of the servant of the complainant recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein there is no mention that any other person accompanied the petitioner whenever he visited the house of the complainant.

(6) The learned Counsel further drew my attention to the disclosure statement of the petitioner and submitted that pursuant so this disclosure statement, the premises of the petitioner were searched by the police but nothing incriminating was recovered from the petitioner and this fact is evident from the search memo dated 19/01/1993, copy of which is at page 22 of the paper book.

(7) The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and has been in jail since 16/01/1993 and,therefore, contended that the petitioner should be released on bail.

(8) In support of his contentions learned Counsel has placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjihhai v. State of Gujarat, and Sheikh Zakir v. State of Bihar, . Emperor v. Mahadeo, Air (29) 1942 Bombay 121, Rameshwar v. TheState. , and Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana, .

(9) MR.BAHRI, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State,submitted that as per the allegations made by the complainant, the petitioner has even extorted money from the complainant while threatening her to show some letters to her husband. Learned Counsel admitted that the husband of the complainant had come to know about the alleged black-mailing by the petitioner from the complainant in August 1992 but learned Counsel submitted that the complainant has given explanation in her complaint for the delay in lodging the complaint with the police. In this connection he drew my attention to a portion of the statement wherein the complainant has stated that the matter was discussed with some elder relations and they advised the complainant and her husband not to report the matter to the police as it may affect their reputation and it may also have effect on their children. Learned Counsel further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court no corroboration to the statement of the prosecutor is required in a case of rape. He. therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. In support of his contention she placed reliance on two Supreme Court judgments in State of Maharashtrav. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, and Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai (supra).

(10) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the copies of various statements on record. I have also perused the written submissions filed by the learned Counsel for the complainant.

(11) In terms of the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant has stated that she did not disclose the facts in regard to the commission of the crime to her husband till August 1992 as she was under the constant threat from the petitioner that he would inform her husband about the letters she had written to him before her marriage but even after the facts were disclosed by the complainant to her husband in August 1992, there is substantial delay of about five months in lodging the complaint by the complainant with the police. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of RaJasthan v. Shri Narain, , "Indian society being what it is, the victims of such a crime ordinarily consult relatives and are hesitant to approach the police since it involves question of morality and chastity of a married woman." Such delay could possibly be of a few days and not of five months as in the present case. I may be pointed out here that in the case of Shri Narain (supra) there was a delay of only two days in lodging thecomplaint. Besides, in the present case the complainant did not take recourse to legal action at the earliest opportunity but admittedly tried to kill the petitioner though she failed to do so. Further the complaint shows that the complainant lodged the complaint only after her husband had gone to the residence of the petitioner on 8/01/1993 to remove his goods and there was some dispute between the father of the petitioner and the husband of the complainant and the parties were taken to the police station and there,the husband of the complainant came to know that the petitioner and his father had lodged many reports against them earlier. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner.

(12) Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25.000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfactions of the Trial Court. With this order the petition stands disposed of. The observation given by me in this order will not have any bearing on the merits of the case.