Naveen Rana vs State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 959 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 03, 2015

+      BAIL APPLN. 2158/2014

       VIKAS RANA
                                                     ..... Petitioner
                             Through : Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal with
                                       Mr.Vaibhav Sethi, Mr.Vinayak
                                       Bhandari and Mr.Gaurav Kakkar,
                                       Advocates.

                             versus

       STATE
                                                     ..... Respondent
                             Through : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP.
                                       Mr.G.Tushar Rao with Mr.Kumar
                                       Ranjan, Mr.A.Singla, Advocates for
                                       the complainant along with
                                       complainant present in person.

+      BAIL APPLN. 2256/2014

       NAVEEN RANA
                                                     ..... Petitioner
                             Through : Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal with
                                       Mr.Vaibhav Sethi, Mr.Vinayak
                                       Bhandari and Mr.Gaurav Kakkar,
                                       Advocates.

                             versus

       STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
                                                    ..... Respondent
                             Through : Mr.Navin K.Jha, APP.
                                       Mr.G.Tushar Rao with Mr.Kumar

Bail Appl.2158/2014 & 2256/2014                               Page 1 of 8
                                     Ranjan, Mr.A.Singla, Advocates for
                                    the complainant along with
                                    complainant present in person.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in Case FIR

No.1558/2014 under Section 376/506/34 registered at Police Station

Mehrauli. In her complaint, lodged on 30.08.2014 the prosecutrix 'X'

(assumed name) stated that she joined Max Life Insurance Company as

Recruitment Manager on 11.06.2010. Petitioner-Vikas Rana joined the

said company in the year 2011 and subsequently promoted to the post of

Senior Manager. Vikas Rana had an evil eye on her from the very

inception and used to tease her. In the year 2012, while she, Vikas Rana

and another colleague had gone to Singapore tour on behalf of the

company, on the way to Malaysia on cruze, Vikas Rana administered her

a soft drink and she became unconscious. When she regained senses, she

came to know that Vikas Rana had committed rape on her person. She

was threatened by the petitioner to upload the video clip on face book and

U-tube and also to send it to her family members. On return to India,

Vikas Rana used to call her at his rented house at DLF Phase III, Gurgaon.

He committed rape upon her person 20-25 times under the threat to make

public the video clips made by him. He left Max Insurance Company

subsequently but continued to talk in indecent manner on phone. Vikas

Rana threatened to kill her and her family members and insisted her to

take divorce from her husband and to marry him. She lodged a complaint

with Gurgaon police on 06.05.2014. On 11.05.2014, Vikas Rana was

called at the police station along with his brother and family members.

They put pressure on her to marry Vikas Rana after divorcing her

husband. It is further alleged that on 10.08.2014 also she was threatened

when she declined to go at Chhatarpur on the asking of the accused Vikas

Rana. When she was compelled to meet him, under threat, Vikas Rana

again committed rape on her person after locking the vehicle and

threatened her to withdraw the complaint.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that a false

complaint has been lodged by the complainant. The petitioners have since

joined the investigation. Vikas Rana is being pressurised to marry the

complainant who has a son aged 8 years. No threat was ever extended to

the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix vehemently urged

that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to recover video

clip. Serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and

they do not deserve anticipatory bail. After interim protection by this

Court, they had threatened the complainant on various occasions for

which she has lodged complaints with the police. Learned Additional

Public Prosecutor also opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioners.

3. Perusal of the record reveals that by orders dated 26.09.2014

and 15.10.2014 passed in the Bail Application Nos.2158/2014 and

2256/2014 respectively, the petitioners were granted interim protection on

their undertaking to join the investigation as and when summoned by the

investigating officer. The order dated 26.09.2014 was passed in the

presence of the learned counsel for the complainant who had opposed the

grant of protection. Subsequently, Crl.M.A.No.17957/2014 was filed for

cancellation of interim protection.

4. Status report reveals that the petitioners have joined the

investigation after the grant of interim protection. Vikas Rana has

submitted his reply and has produced all the case properties i.e. car

bearing Registration No.DL-1CQ1528, Mobile phone, Laptop before the

investigating officer which has been seized. The related case property has

been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for getting expert opinion which

is still awaited.

5. Admitted position is that a complaint was lodged with

Gurgaon police by the prosecutrix 'X' on 06.05.2014. Contents of the

instant FIR find mention in the said complaint. The complainant

admittedly did not desire any action on her complaint for eight days and

asked the police to arrange a meeting with Vikas Rana. It is not in dispute

that applications were filed by both Vikas Rana and the prosecutrix in the

said police station to report settlement between them and that both would

marry after taking divorce from her husband. The said compromise

reported to Gurgaon police station was even acted upon and a petition for

seeking divorce by mutual consent was filed in the court of Principal

Judge, Family Court, Saket by the prosecutrix and her husband Raja

Prasad Singh under Section 13 (B) (I) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the

said joint petition, it was mentioned that due to temperamental

differences, the prosecutrix and her husband were living separate from

each other since 05.01.2010. Statement of both the prosecutrix and her

husband were recorded by the Family Court and by a judgment dated

24.05.2014, First Motion Petition was allowed. Counsel for the

prosecutrix when confronted specifically as to what had prompted the

prosecutrix to file joint petition for seeking divorce by mutual consent,

responded that it was done under pressure. This explanation simply does

not appeal to mind as the prosecutrix was before the court and there was

no occasion for her to seek divorce by mutual consent. It appears that

subsequent to the settlement reported before the Gurgaon police some

problem arose to its execution which led to the lodging of the FIR in

question on 30.08.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed on

record number of SMSs and text messages exchanged between the

petitioner Vikas Rana and the complainant on various dates.

6. The petitioners have denied if any threat was ever extended

to 'X'. FIR No.2024/2014 dated 20.10.2014 under Section

323/341/506/34 IPC was registered at police station Mehrauli, Delhi, but

there is, prima facie, nothing to show the involvement of the petitioners as

it was against two 'unknown' persons. Status report does not reveal if the

petitioners were involved in the said FIR. One text message SMS dated

30.08.2014 is stated to have been received from mobile phone

No.7042827453. Status report reveals that ownership of the mobile phone

was traced to Rohit Gupta, resident of D-23, Chatterpur Enclave who is

not traceable. DD No.82-B dated 3.11.2014 has also been recorded. It is

stated that all these complaints are being lodged by the prosecutrix to

deprive the petitioners of the benefit of bail.

7. There is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It is

unexplainable as to why the complaint lodged before the Gurgaon police

was not taken to its logical end and why it was withdrawn after reporting

settlement. The prosecutrix moving the Family Court for seeking divorce

by mutual consent goes to show that the parties had attempted to act upon

the settlement reported to Gurgaon police.

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the

petitioners deserve anticipatory bail and orders dated 26.09.2014 and

15.10.2014 require confirmation.

9. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail and

in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail on their

furnishing personal bonds in the sum of `1,00,000/--each with one surety

each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating

Officer with the condition that they shall join the investigation as and

when required. They shall surrender their pass-ports (if any) in the Trial

Court and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court

concerned. It is further ordered that they shall not contact the complainant

and the prosecution witnesses and also shall not extend any threat to any

of them.

10. The bail applications stand disposed of. Observations in the

bail order shall not have any impact on merits of the case.

11. Copy of the order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

FEBRUARY 03, 2015/sa