Ananda D.V. vs State Nct Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 5461 Del

$~
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                     DATE OF DECISION: 26th NOVEMBER, 2013

+       BAIL APPLN. 1815/2013
        ANANDA D.V.                                        ..... Petitioner
                             Through     Mr. Avi Singh and Mr. Aditya V.
                                         Singh, Advocates
                             versus
        STATE NCT OF DELHI                                  ..... Respondent
                      Through            Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP
                                         Mr. Puneet Mittal, Advocate for the
                                         complainant     along        with   the
                                         complainant in person


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

                             JUDGMENT

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail filed on

behalf of the applicant Ananda D.V. in FIR No.455/2013 u/s 376/380

IPC, PS Safdarjung Enclave.

2. It is submitted by Sh. Avi Singh, Advocate for the petitioner that

as part of applicant's regular duties, he had to work with a vendor of

Maruti Suzuki India Limited-NIIT Evolve, whose offices are at

Gurgaon. During meetings in Vasant Kunj, office of Maruti Suzuki in

Gurgaon the applicant, aged about 28 years, met the complainant aged

about 35 years. After two months of regular interaction, their

friendship developed into a genuine relationship sometimes in the

beginning of March, 2013. Although the complainant continued to live

with her family, however, she also visited the applicant's house at

Arjun Nagar once or twice a week. Their relationship started to

undergo strain sometimes in the middle of May, 2013 when the

complainant began to speak against the applicant's parents. The

applicant tried to distance himself from the relationship but the

complainant was persistent and used to coerce him and threaten him in

order to continue the relationship. She also kept asking the applicant

not to talk to his parents and friends and only spent time with her. In

July, 2013, the complainant sent the applicant threatening messages.

On 25th August, 2013, she came to the applicant's house in Arjun

Nagar and demanded that he should inform his family about their

relationship. The applicant called his family who were shocked and

surprised. The complainant took 10 tablets of Vitrol but she did not

swallow them and the applicant was able to get her to spit it out. She

then slept till 6:00 pm on 25th August, 2013. The complainant locked

herself in the room and did not come out till midnight. The applicant

got panicked and called a friend in Bangalore asking him to come to

support him in Delhi. However, when the complainant came to know

about the same, she threatened the applicant's friend with criminal

charges if he comes to Delhi. She also threatened applicant that she

would cause harm to his family and even kill herself if he did not

transfer all the money in his bank account. He transferred

Rs.3,50,000/- from his account to her account in ICICI Bank

electronically.

3. On the intervening night of 25th/ 26th August, 2013, the applicant

sought the intervention of his landlord. She made a missing person

report at PS Safdarjung Enclave which was false. In a conversation

recorded, the complainant, on 4th September, 2013 has clearly stated

that her feelings for the applicant are intact and she was a willing and

consensual party to the relationship. The applicant has been attempting

to file a complaint of intimidation and harassment against the

complainant at PS Safdarjung Enclave. On refusal by the police station

to register the complaint, the applicant was constrained to file a

complaint with DCP, South on 19th September, 2013. It was submitted

that the conduct of the complainant clearly reflects that it was entirely

consensual relationship. The applicant has roots in the society. He is

aged about 28 years and an engineer. He is in custody since 20 th

September, 2013. As such, he be released on bail.

4. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on the following

judgments:-

Jagdish Nautiyal vs. State, 2013(1) JCC 311 para 11;

Arif Iqbal vs. State, 2009 (164) DLT 157, para 6,7;

Deepak Gulati vs. State, (2013) 7 SCC 675, para 21, 24;

Prashant Bharti vs. State, Supreme Court, Crl. A. No. 175/2013 arising out of SLP (Crl.) 1800 of 2009 dated January 23, 2013, para 22;

M.P. Lohia vs. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 686, paras 7, 8, 9;

Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, para 21;

Moti Ram vs. State of MP, (1978) 4 SCC 47, para 14.

5. On the other hand, learned APP duly assisted by Sh. Puneet

Mittal, learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that the accused

allured the complainant to marry her, which was refused by the

complainant but on his insistence, he took her into confidence. The

accused and the complainant also lived together at Gautam Nagar and

thereafter reference was made to the detailed complaint made by the

prosecutrix for submitting that till date even charge sheet has not been

submitted, as such, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

6. Reliance was placed by the respondent on the following

judgments:-

Karthi @ Karthick vs. State, 2013(7) Scale 777

Yedha Srinivasa Rao vs. State of MP, 2006 (3) JCC 1623

State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shree Kant Shekari, AIR, 2004(SC) 4404 Nikhil Parashar vs. NCT of Delhi, 2010 (1) JCC 615

7. I have given my considerable thoughts to the respective

submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the authorities relied

upon by them.

8. At the outset, it may be mentioned that all the authorities relied

upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner were also relied upon

before the learned Trial Court and the same were considered and were

distinguished by observing that in the case of Arif Iqbal (supra), the

complainant had developed physical relationship with the accused after

administering intoxicating pills to her own family members at her own

residence and taking this fact into consideration, the accused was

granted anticipatory bail. In Jagdish Nautiyal (supra), the accused

reiterated that he was unmarried and he would take care of complainant

and her daughter. Believing it, the complainant had entered into a

marriage ceremony with the accused on 10th May, 2010 in Budhisht

Temple near Birla Mandir and photographs and necessary

documentations were also done, where after, even registration of the

marriage was applied. It was also observed that the complainant was

also a member of Yoga Club where the accused and his wife had been

going and the complainant knew the accused to be married. Taking all

these circumstances into consideration, the accused was admitted to

bail disbelieving that the complainant would not know the marital

status of the accused. Deepak Gulati (supra) was the appeal against

conviction and after taking into consideration material contradictions,

improvements and embellishment in the statement of witnesses besides

noticing that the complainant had inclination towards the accused and

was willing to get married with him, the accused was granted benefit of

doubt and was acquitted. M.P. Lohia (supra), Sanjay Chandra(supra)

and Moti Ram(supra) were relied upon in order to show as to when the

anticipatory bail be granted.

9. So far as the legal principle regarding grant of bail enunciated in

these judicial pronouncements, the same is undisputed. However, in

these authorities also, it was observed that factual background of each

and every case is to be considered.

10. On the other hand, in Karthick (supra) relied upon by counsel

for the complainant, on facts, it was found that accused committed

deceit with prosecutrix by promising to marry her. On the strength of

the said deception, in the first instance, persuaded her not to disclose

the occurrence to anyone, and thereafter repeatedly had sexual

intercourse with her. Therefore, it was held that in the facts and

circumstances, it was not even possible to accept the contention of the

accused that sexual intercourse was consensual. In Yedla Srinivasa

Rao (supra) also, on fact it was found that consent taken by accused

with clear intention not to fulfil the promise and persuading victim to

believe that he is going to marry her and obtain her consent for sexual

intercourse cannot be treated as consent. In State of Himachal

Pradesh (supra), it was held that burden of proof is on accused. Nikhil

(supra) was a bail application. There was accusation for false promise

of marriage. Petitioner had sexual relation with petitioner not only

because both knew each other but also because both the families

consented to marriage. The application for grant of anticipatory bail

was dismissed.

11. Turning to the factual matrix of the case, a perusal of the FIR

goes to show that the same is very detailed one disclosing that the

petitioner met prosecutrix in January, 2013 during official meeting and

then, met several times for business reasons. On persuasion of

accused, friendship developed. Prosecutrix disclosed him that she was

a widow. Taking advantage of the same, accused gave her offer of

marriage and then they co-habited with each other. FIR went on to

disclose how deceit was practised by the accused by talking to his

family members in his regional language giving an impression to

prosecutrix that he had informed them about the prosecutrix. It was

revealed only on 25th August, 2013, when he told her sister that a girl

was staying with him for the last several months and insisting for

marriage which he never was interested in. He also left the place

where he was staying taking all belongings and when prosecutrix

lodged a missing report, then he informed that he had gone to his

relative's house in South India. Petitioner has placed on record a CD

and conversation recorded by him. However, from the same, no

inference can be drawn as to what transpired before or after the time of

footage, more particularly, when it was the accused himself who had

recorded the conversation.

12. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, coupled with

the fact that the charge sheet has not yet been submitted, at this stage,

accused is not entitled to be released on bail.

13. The application is accordingly dismissed.

14. Copy of this order be given dasti.

SUNITA GUPTA (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 26, 2013 rs