Vikas @ Vicky vs State
2016 Latest Caselaw 5237 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+   Bail Application No.1265/2016
                                     Date of Decision: 9th August, 2016

    VIKAS @ VICKY                                       ..... Petitioner

                       Through:      Mr.Vinod Kumar Goyal and
                                     Mr.Abhinav Singh, Advs.

                       versus

    STATE                                               ..... Respondents

                       Through       Mr.Manjeet Arya, APP.

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

    P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner

in FIR No.134/2016 under Section 377/506 IPC read with Section 6 of

POCSO Act registered at Police Station: Kalyan Puri, Delhi.

2. The case in the nutshell is that on 16.03.2016 a complaint was

received at police station Kalyan Puri by one Smt.Savita w/o Om

Prakash R/o: adjoining to Chuhare Wali Factory, Kichri Pur Village,

Delhi, to the effect that she is residing at the above address with her

family on rent from the last two months and doing private job and that

on the said date at about 3 P.M. her son Bablu aged 10 years had gone

to lay at Gurudwara Khichripur where at around 4.30 P.M. the

petitioner took her son and persuaded him of having a bath at pit near

CNG Pump, Khichripur and on reaching there threatened her son to

hold his penis in his mouth and thereafter her son under fear took his

penis in mouth. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to loosen the pajama of

her son when people who were standing by saw him, caught him and

took him to the police station and thereafter immediately her son came

home and told her the entire incident. The people who had caught

hold of the petitioner reached Gurudwara Khichripur where the

complainant also reached with her son and he identified the petitioner

as the boy who had committed the wrong act with him. The son of the

petitioner was thereafter taken for medical examination at LBS

Hospital to the complainant objected. Based on the circumstances, a

case under Section 377/506 IPC was registered.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed in

the matter on 24.05.2016. The charges are yet to be framed. The

petitioner's bail application has been rejected thrice by the court of

session.

4. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

taken the grounds that the allegations levelled in the complaint are

false and fabricated; that the prosecution has filed the challan in

support of its case and has relied upon the statement of the victim

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where he has stated that no

offence was committed against him and the whole story was

concocted and there was no allegation made by him against the

petitioner; that the complainant as well in her statement recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that no offence was committed

against her son and the whole story was concocted and there was no

allegation made by the complainant against the petitioner; that there

was no other independent witnesses/ eye witnesses cited by the police

in the list of witnesses to be examined in the present case; that there

was no MLC done by the prosecution which clearly shows that no

offence was committed by the petitioner; that three bail applications

have been rejected by the learned ASJ without taking consideration

the facts and circumstances of the case; that the petitioner is a young

boy aged around 22 years and has been falsely implicated in the

present case and is behind the bars since 17.03.2016.

5. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has vehemently

opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim is yet to be

examined; that this is a crime against the society and should be dealt

with a heavy hand and that if relased on bail, the petitioner is likely to

tamper with evidence and influence the witnesses;

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record. The petitioner while committing the wrong act with the victim

was caught by the public and later the victim identified him as the

person who had attempted to do the wrong act with him; the witnesses

including the complainant and the victim are yet to be examined; there

is strong apprehension that, if released on bail, the petitioner may

influence the witnesses and tamper with evidence; that so far as the

grounds raised by the petitioner for grant of bail to the petitioner are

concerned, the same cannot be gone into at this stage.

7. In view of the gravity of offence and specific role attributed to

the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Before parting with the order, this court would like to place it

on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated

hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of

disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing

contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final

opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the

case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of

the trial.

9. The present bail application is accordingly dismissed.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE AUGUST 09, 2016 dm