Delhi High Court
Shabnam @ Pushpa vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 May, 2012
Author: V.K.Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPN. No. 1203/2011
Date of Decision : 17.05.2012
SHABNAM @ PUSHPA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Giri, Adv.
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
WITH
BAIL APPN. NO.1437/2011
CHINJU @ RAJU ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Giri, Adv.
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. These are two bail applications bearing Nos.1203/2011 filed by
Shabnam @ Pushpa and 1437/2011 filed by Chinju @ Raju.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 3.8.2011, on
the basis of the statement of one Aasha Kumari, an FIR
No.253/2011 under Sections 363/342/376/34 IPC was
registered by PS:Tilak Nagar, Delhi against Shabnam and her
three brothers, namely, Chinju @ Raju, Gugai @ Janmuddin
and Nanu @ Langda. The Prosecutrix, in her complaint, had
alleged that on 16.5.2010, at about 2:00 P.M., while she was
going to deliver food to her mother, Shabnam forcibly dragged
her and made her to sit in a Qualis Car, wherein the three
brothers of Shabnam were already sitting. Shabnam got down
at Shiv Shakti Mandir, while as her three brothers took her to a
shop of Kabadi and committed rape on her. On the next date,
i.e., 17.5.2010, at about 8:00 P.M., again she was similarly
caught hold of by the three brothers of Shabnam and taken to
the same shop of Kabadi and subjected her to rape.
3. On the basis of these allegations, the aforesaid FIR was
registered. The two brothers of Shabnam are stated to be in
custody, while as the present applications for bail has been
filed by Shabnam and her brother, Chinju @ Raju.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners
has been three-fold. Firstly, that the incident of rape has been
reported after 14 months delay. Secondly, the medical
evidence does not corroborate the allegation of rape and
thirdly, the Kabadi Shop owner, where the alleged incident is
purported to have been committed, has not corroborated the
fact that the Prosecutrix was brought to the Kabadi Shop for
the purpose of being subjected to rape.
6. During the course of investigation, the Police has found that
earlier an FIR No.211/2010 under Sections 328/34 IPC was
registered by PS:Tilak Nagar, Delhi against the father of the
complainant at the instance of one of the brothers of Shabnam,
namely, Janmuddin.
7. The learned APP has opposed the applications for the grant of
bail on the ground since the allegations against the petitioners
are very serious and are still at the stage of investigation,
therefore, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and
also gone through the records.
9. No doubt, there was a delay of 14 months in lodging the FIR,
but that may be relevant only at the time of the trial and not
for the purpose of grant of bail in case of this nature, where the
Prosecutrix has not only lodged the complaint, but has also
supported the allegation of rape in her statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C.
10. So far as the question of medical evidence or the shop of
Kabadi, where the incident of rape is purported to have taken
place is concerned, these are matters to be investigated by the
Police on interrogation. In case the anticipatory bail is granted
to the petitioners, the Investigating Agency will not be able to
investigate into the matter with a free hand to arrive at the
truth of the matter. Needless to say, the allegations against the
petitioners are very serious and cannot be taken lightly. As
regards Shabnam, a definite role has been attributed to her
who was instrumental in the commission of the offence upon
the Prosecutrix because it is she who dragged her to the Qualis
Car where the three accused were sitting.
11. Accordingly, I feel that this is not a fit case where the benefit of
anticipatory bail can be granted to either of the petitioners.
12. The bail applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
May 17, 2012
tp
