Delhi High Court
Bhim Singh vs State on 19 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1801/2011
% Judgment delivered on:19th January, 2012
BHIM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Rakesh Sherawat, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1 The instant petition is filed under Section 439 CrP.C. for grant
of bail as the petitioner has been denied the same vide order dated
1.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket, Delhi.
2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
brother-in-law (Saala) of co-accused Rajender Meena, who was having
affairs with the prosecutrix. Rajender Meena's wife is the sister of
petitioner therefore, he wanted to safe the family affairs of his sister
and he was throughout opposing the affairs of the prosecutrix with co-
accused Rajender Meena.
3 Moreso, the prosecutrix is the cousin sister of the petitioner
(Mama's Daughter), therefore, there was no question to join Rajender
Meena while committing rape on her since he was opposing their
affair, therefore, the prosecutrix deliberately under the pressure made
allegations against the petitioner.
4 Her mother gave the information of missing of the prosecutrix
on 22.07.2010 at P.S. Jangpura, the same was recorded vide DD Entry
No. 23 dated 23.07.2010
5 It is alleged, on 26.07.2010, the accused persons brought the
complainant in Chowki at Jangpura and there she was compelled to
make her statement in favour of accused persons as her photographs
were in their custody and she was scared that they may made access to
public, in case she does not obey them.
6 The petitioner was taken in custody on 08.09.2011 and
thereafter, he was sent to police remand but nothing was recovered
from the petitioner. No photographs of any kind were recovered from
accused persons. It falsify the story of the prosecutrix.
7 It is further submitted that under the pressure prosecutrix made
the petitioner as accused whereas she was having affairs with Rajender
Meena. It is pertinent to mention here that the father of the petitioner
was also made accused initially but in the absence of any evidence
against his father, is shown in Column 12 A(Old Column 2) in the
charge-sheet. It shows the prosecutrix has impleaded as many as
persons, as she wanted.
8 Learned APP for State submits that Rajender Meena is
Constable in Delhi Police, who allegedly took the prosecutrix to
Rajasthan, and committed rape on the prosecutrix along with the
petitioner and therefore, the instant application may be dismissed.
9 I find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
10 The prosecutrix is in relation with the accused persons. The
prosecutrix knew that Rejender Meena was married and having two
children. The prosecutrix is 24 years old and was lured by Rajender
Meena who assured to marry her. The prosecutrix is a matured girl
who has studied upto 12th Standard. If it is presumed that the
prosecutrix came to know about the marriage of the accused Rajender
Meena later on, being afraid of the legal implications of second
marriage, made allegations against the petitioner.
11 In the circumstances and in view of above discussion, I deem it
appropriate to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner
shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial court.
12 With the above observations, the petition is allowed.
13 Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 19, 2012
j
