Sunayna Grover vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 446 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      Bail Application No.201 /2009

%                                Reserved on     :02.02.2009
                                 Date of decision:09.02.2009


SUNAYNA GROVER                                     ...Petitioner

                           Versus

STATE                                              ...Respondent


                                     WITH


+      Bail Application No. 202/2009


CHUNKEY @ VIKAS GROVER                            ...Petitioner


                           Versus

STATE                                            ...Respondent

                                     WITH


+      Bail Application No. 203/2009


RAINA GROVER                                     ...Petitioner

                           Versus

STATE                                            ...Respondent


Advocates who appeared for the parties

For Petitioners            : Mr.Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate

For State                  : Mr.Arvind Gupta, APP for State

For complainant            : Mr.Dhan Mohan, Advocate




Bail Application No.201, 202 & 203/2009                          Page 1 of 8
 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers
      may be allowed to see the judgment?           Yes

2.    To be referred to Reporter or not?            Yes

3.    Whether the judgment should be
      reported in the Digest?                       Yes

MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of the aforesaid three bail

applications filed on behalf of Sunyana Grover D/o Sunil Dutt

Grover, Chunkey Grover S/o Sunil Dutt Grover, Raina Grover w/o

Sunny Narchal and D/o Sunil Dutt Grover who all are undergoing

trial in a case arising out of FIR No.489/2006 under section 5 of

ITP Act, read with Sections 376,120B, 34 IPC registered at Police

Station West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and are all in judicial

custody since 17.7.2008.

2. According to the counsel for the applicants, the applicants

are entitled to bail inasmuch as, the complainant /Chitra has

lodged the present FIR as a counterblast to the case pending

before the CAW Cell filed by Raina, the sister of the applicants -

Sunayna and Chunky on 17.8.2006 against her husband Sunny,

Father in law Surendra and the complainant/Chitra. It is their case

that all the family members have been falsely implicated by the

complainant so as to save her family members. It is submitted

that story projected has been tested by the IO in his interim

report and nothing has come out. Moreover the complainant

failed to identify the Sardar(who is alleged to be a customer in

the alleged prostitution business) and other customers in her FIR.

It is also submitted that even the charge sheet submitted by the

police did not reveal any finding, evidence or any other material

against the applicants which can implicate them in the aforesaid

matter. The filing of FIR after 9 months of the alleged incident

leaves a big question of doubt inasmuch as she had not

explained the reason for such delay. It is further submitted that

the applicants are having no criminal background whatsoever

and are of young age and are permanent resident of Delhi and no

more required for any investigation. It is thus submitted that the

applicants, having clean antecedents are entitled to be released

on bail.

3. Regarding the applicant, Sunayna Grover, who is related to

Raina as her elder sister, it is also stated that she was hardly 21

years of age at the time of the alleged incident and has no

criminal antecedent whatsoever. It is further submitted that

applicant moved the anticipatory bail application when she was

under protection from arrest vide order dated 11.09.2006.

Thereafter when she was arrested from her house she moved a

bail application which was rejected by the Ld. ASJ vide order

dated 26.7.2008, feeling aggrieved by the said order applicant

approached this court on 12.1.2009 whereby she was directed to

move the bail application before the Sessions court which has

been dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2009 whereby it was held

that the applicant/Sunayna in conspiracy with other co-accused

persons forced the complainant for prostitution by threatening

her. It is also submitted that other accused who allegedly

committed rape on the body of the complainant have already

been granted bail by the Sessions Court namely Harish Sachdeva,

Sunil Gulati and Rajesh Jaggi. It is also submitted that there is no

evidence against them which connects the applicants with crime.

4. Regarding the second applicant, Chunkey Grover @ Vikas

Grover, it is stated that he was young boy of 20 years at the time

of his arrest. It is further submitted that after the registration of

the FIR the applicant approached the court for seeking grant of

anticipatory bail and vide order dated 11.09.2009 he was

protected from arrest. Thereafter he was arrested on 25.7.2008

and moved regular bail application which was rejected by Ld. ASJ

vide order dated 8.9.2008. He then challenged the same before

the High Court where he was also directed to move before the

Sessions Court where his application was dismissed vide order

dated 27.01.2009.

5. Lastly regarding the third applicant i.e. Raina Grover, it is

stated that she is a young lady of 23 years of age and she has

infant daughter of three years and was also protected by the

order of 11.09.2006 from being arrested. Subsequently applicant

moved a Bail application which was rejected vide orders dated

26.7.2008 and feeling aggrieved by the said order the applicant

also moved before this Court and same directions were given

which was given to the earlier two applicants whereby her bail

application was also rejected by the Ld. ASJ on 27.1.2009 on the

same grounds. As stated above, Raina filed a complaint against

Sunny, her husband and her in laws before the CAW Cell and it is

for that reason the present complaint has been filed as a counter

blast. It is also submitted that the story of the prosecution which

alleged that the complainant was enticed from her matrimonial

house by the applicants and thereafter was subjected to rape is

even otherwise unbelievable.

6. The application for bail of Sunayna has been opposed by

counsel for the State. According to them, her mother (Anita

Grover) and her brother Chunkey forced the complainant into

prostitution. It is also alleged that the complainant had identified

three other persons namely Harish Sachdeva, Sunil Gulati and

Rajesh Jaggi before whom she was produced for prostitution by

the applicants. Complainant has also given five mobile numbers

which are: 9313987707, 9350458742, 9312743224, 9810361378

& 9871134633 and on the scrutiny of the call details, it was found

that there was lot of communications between all the five

numbers and the phone numbers of Harish Sachdeva with whom

the complainant was compelled to prostitution was found in the

call details of the above five numbers. It is also alleged that

phone numbers 9350458742 and 9312743224 were got issued

on the fake identity and used by the accused. It is further

submitted that 4 audio cassettes were recorded separately which

contained conversation between Sunayna/accused and her

husband and her in laws. She had admitted before her husband &

in laws that she was involved in prostitution before marriage and

customers were being sent to her matrimonial home by her

mother and brother. The applicant did not give her voice sample

despite the order of the court.

7. The application for Chunkey Grover has been opposed on

the ground that FIR has been registered under section 5 of the

ITP Act, read with sections 376, 120B, 34 IPC on the allegations of

the complainant that she was forced into prostitution by the

applicants by threatening and beating her and if she discloses

this fact to anyone she would be killed. Accused has also

threatened her that a blue film had been prepared which could be

shown to others in case of her refusal to carry on prostitution. It is

also submitted that the complainant is the real sister in law of the

accused Raina Grover while the applicant is the brother of Raina

Grover. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the state

that it is pertinent to mention here that accused persons had

taken 5 moblie numbers mentioned aforesaid and on scrutiny it

was very much found that there were lot of communications

between all the 5 numbers and even the phone number of Harish

Sachdeva was found in the call details with whom the

complainant was compelled for prostitution.

8. Application of Raina Grover has been opposed on the

ground that the allegations against her are of grave nature and

that she may threaten the prosecution witnesses in case she is

admitted on bail. It is also mentioned by the counsel for the state

that allegations made by the complainant are that she was forced

into prostitution by her Bhabi who is also the applicant herein and

by the other close relatives namely sister in law Sunayna, the

brother as well as mother by using the means of threatening to

defame or kill her.

9. Leaned Counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment

of Priya Patel Vs. State of M.P., (2006) 6 SCC 263, wherein it has

been held :

"Under the definition of rape under section 375 and 376 a woman cannot be prosecuted for gang rape even if she facilitates the act of rape."

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival

submissions. In the peculiar facts of this case, which shows that

the applicants have been implicated by Chitra, the

prosecutrix/complainant, whose testimony needs to be looked

into taking into consideration the past history of litigation

between Raina, who is wife of Sunny, the brother of the

complainant and taking into consideration the period already

spent in jail by the applicants and the fact that co-accused, who

are the alleged rapists, have already been released on bail, the

applicants are also entitled to bail as the possibility of false

implication cannot be ruled out at this stage.

11. Accordingly, I admit all the applicants to bail in FIR

No.489/2006 under section 5 of ITP Act, read with Sections

376,120B, 34 IPC registered at Police Station West Patel Nagar,

New Delhi on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of

Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) each with one surety

each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Judge

subject to the conditions that they shall not leave the city of

Delhi, shall report on every alternate Monday at 10 am before the

concerned SHO, shall deposit their passports, if any, with the

concerned Trial Court and shall not intimidate the witnesses and

will not try to delay the trial of this case on false pretext.

12. Bail applications stand disposed of. Dasti.

MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

February 09, 2009