Manish Jindal vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 3447 Del

*              HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     BAIL APPN. No. 502/2012

                                         Date of Decision : 23.05.2012

MANISH JINDAL                       ..... Petitioner
                            Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
                                      Mr. M.K. Choudhary, Adv.
                       versus
STATE                         ..... Respondent
                              Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is an application for the grant of anticipatory bail in

respect of FIR No.112/2012 under Sections 376/506 IPC

registered by PS:Krishna Nagar, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Kavita Jain,

d/o, Subhash Chand Jain, r/o H.No. Subhash Mohalla,

Sonepat, Haryana, lodged a complaint on 3.9.2011, on the

basis of which the aforesaid FIR was registered. The

allegations in the complaint are that the prosecutrix is a

married woman and in the year 2008, she was residing in

House No.23, Gali No.3, Main Shanker Nagar, Krishna Nagar,

Delhi. The accused, Manish Jindal, had purchased a plot

adjoining to the house of the prosecutrix. He started

borrowing the household articles from the prosecutrix and had

also taken electricity connection from her house. It is alleged

by her that on one day, when her husband and the children

had gone to attend the engagement ceremony of some

relation, the accused came to her house and gave her some

mithai (prasad) on the representation that it was the offering

of the God. The said mithai (prasad) was laced with

intoxicant. On consuming the said mithai (prasad), the

prosecutrix fell unconscious and the accused raped her. When

the prosecutrix gained her consciousness, she found herself

naked and she protested, but the accused threatened and

terrorized her. From the year 2008 to 2011, she was raped by

the accused on 3-4 occasions. In the year 2011, the

prosecutrix became pregnant and because of this, the accused

gave her abortion pills, which she consumed, as a

consequence of which her health condition deteriorated. It has

now been stated that the husband of the prosecutrix has

deserted her and further that she was being blackmailed by

the accused to submit to him physically, as the accused was

claiming that he was having the video recording/clipping of

the prosecutrix, which, if shown to the public at large, will

spoil her image completely. After the registration of the FIR,

on the basis of this complaint, investigations were carried out

and the statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 164

Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein she had supported this story.

The statements of the children of the prosecutrix were also

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., who have corroborated

the statement of their mother. As a matter of fact, the

children of the prosecutrix had specifically stated in their

statements that on one occasion, the accused not only beat

them mercilessly, but also confined them in a room and

subjected their mother to physical abuse.

3. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

accused, has very vehemently argued for the grant of

anticipatory bail. It has been contended by him that the FIR

does not give the date, time or the month in which the rape

had allegedly been committed. It has been contended by him

that as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix was a married woman

and, therefore, she had a consensual sexual relation with the

petitioner. In this regard, it has been contended that the

petitioner is in possession of various SMSs received from the

prosecutrix, which belies her claim, as if she was subjected to

rape. It has also been denied by the learned Senior Counsel

that the accused is in possession of any video

recording/clipping or the photographs, which may be said to

be objectionable and belonging to the prosecutrix. It has been

stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Siddhiram

Satlingappa Mhetre -vs- State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2011

(I) SCC 694, has clearly laid down that it is not necessary to

arrest the accused in each and every case. The Police must

give the justified reasons for the arrest. It has been

contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the incident

pertains to the year 2008, while as the denial of the bail to

the accused as on date will not only be harsh, but also bring

disrepute to the accused. Therefore, the accused be enlarged

on bail, as he is prepared to join the investigation. It has also

been offered by him that the accused is prepared to surrender

the SMSs which the prosecutrix had sent to the accused which

will belie the case of the Prosecution. Hence, it has been

stated that the petitioner be admitted to anticipatory bail.

4. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail to the accused on the ground that this is one

of the rare cases where a prosecutrix has been subjected to

sexual assault by an accused in the presence of her children,

apart from physically beating to her children. In this regard,

the statements of the children of the prosecutrix have already

been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned APP has

contended that this is a fit case where the custodial

interrogation of the accused is required to be done, which will

bring the correct facts on record. The allegations against the

accused are stated to be very serious.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the accused and the learned APP. The allegations

against the accused are very serious in nature, inasmuch as

he has not only first gained the trust of an innocent woman,

but also betrayed the same by subjecting her to physical

assault and rape, even if it is assumed that it was a case of

consensual sex. The petitioner has also allegedly blackmailed

her to submit to him by contending that he has video

recording/clipping and the video recording of the prosecutrix.

This, in my view, is a very serious offence, inasmuch as not

only has it caused mental and the physical trauma, but has

also spoiled the matrimonial life of the prosecutrix. It has

transpired that the husband of the prosecutrix has already

initiated divorce proceedings against her. I feel that this is a

fit case where the custodial interrogation of the accused

ought to be done. So far as the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Siddhiram Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) is

concerned, it does not lay down that the anticipatory bail

should be given to all the accused persons.

6. For the reasons mentioned above, I am not inclined to admit

the accused to anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the bail

application is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J MAY 23, 2012 tp