Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Raja Bhattacharya
2016 Latest Caselaw 275 Del

$-20 to 22
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    DECIDED ON : 14th JANUARY, 2016

+     CRL.M.C. 4523/2014
      CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION                     ..... Petitioner
                           Through :      Mr.Abhishek Chauhan, Advocate,
                                          for Ms.Sonia Mathur, Standing
                                          Counsel.

                           versus

      RAJA BHATTACHARYA                                   ..... Respondent
                  Through :               None.

+     CRL.M.C. 413/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.1627/2015
      CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION                     ..... Petitioner
                           Through :      Mr.Abhishek Chauhan, Advocate,
                                          for Ms.Sonia Mathur, Standing
                                          Counsel.

                    versus
      IMTIAZ ALI & ORS                                    ..... Respondents
                    Through :             None.

AND
+   CRL.M.C. 1640/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.5951/2015
      CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION                     ..... Petitioner
                           Through :      Mr.Abhishek Chauhan, Advocate,
                                          for Ms.Sonia Mathur, Standing
                                          Counsel.
Crl.M.C. 4523/2014 & connected matters.                           Page 1 of 6
                            versus

      AJAY CHAUDHARY @ AJAY & ANR                         ..... Respondents
                  Through : None.

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

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petitions under Section 439(2) read with Section

482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioner / CBI for cancellation of bail

granted to the respondents on 03.07.2014, 08.12.2014 and 18.02.2014 by

the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. These are contested by the respondents.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. As per the prosecution case, in the evening of

14.03.2012 a search was conducted by the Investigating Officer along

with other staff at the premises of respondent - Ajay Chaudhary at WA-

82, 2nd floor, Shakarpur, Delhi. Ajay Chaudhary @ Ajay, Imtiaz Ali and

one Renu Sharma were arrested from there. Victim - child 'R' (assumed

name) was rescued from there by the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit of

CBI. Ajay Chaudhary was allegedly running brothel from the said

premises. 'R' disclosed during investigation that she was brought to Delhi

from Kolkatta on the pretext to provide her job. At Delhi, she was

repeatedly sexually assaulted by the accused persons and their customers

for monetary consideration. She was forced to have sex with eight to ten

customers daily and the respondents used to mint money from her

exploitation. She was forced to consume liquor and drugs and was also

severely beaten. The prosecution was able to arrest fifteen such traffickers

during investigation. Upon investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against

the respondents and vide order dated 15.03.2014, they were charged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the bail granted

to the respondents in a very serious offence is liable to be cancelled. The

Trial Court did not appreciate that the victim had substantiated her

allegations in her deposition against the respondents. Many material

prosecution witnesses remain to be examined. There is every possibility of

the respondents to temper with the evidence. The Trial Court committed

error in analyzing the evidence on merits. The evidence of a witness

should be read in its totality and not in isolation. The case is still at its

initial stage. Reliance has been placed on 'CBI vs. Birendra Kumar

Singh', Crl.M.C.4444/2013; 'Satish Jaggi vs. State of Chhattisgarh &

ors.', (2007) 11 SCC 195; 'CBI vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy', (2013) 7 SCC 452;

'Ash Mohammed vs. Shiv Raj Singh', 2013 (9) SCALE 165; 'Neeru Yadav

vs. State of U.P. & Anr.', 2014 (14) SCALE 59; 'Dr.Narendra K.Amin vs.

State of Gujarat', 2008 (13) SCC 584 and 'State of U.P. vs. Amarmani

Tripathi', 2005 (8) SCC 21.

3. Refuting the contentions, learned counsel for the respondents

urged that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the grant of bail.

4. It is a matter of record that FIR was registered under various

offences on 02.05.2012 by the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit of the

petitioner. Respondents Ajay Chaudhary, Imtiaz Ali and Renu Sharma

were arrested on 15.03.2012. Upon completion of the investigation, a

charge-sheet has already been filed. Statements of the prosecutrix 'R' has

been recorded on various dates in detail. The respondents were in custody

since long for various durations. Admittedly, there is no involvement of

the respondents in any other criminal case and they are not previous

convicts. There is controversy regarding the exact age of the prosecutrix.

It is informed that as per ossification report, her age has been estimated to

be 17 - 18 years. Admittedly, she had married respondent Raja

Bhattacharya and had remained in her company for sufficient duration;

she even became pregnant from him. After the grant of bail vide order

dated 08.12.2012, all the respondents except Ajay Chaudhary got release

orders and continued to be on bail. Only respondent Raja Bhattacharya

continued to be in custody due to status quo order dated 01.10.2014 of this

Court as he was unable to furnish the surety bond promptly. Vide order

dated 22.05.2015, stay order dated 01.10.2014 against the release of the

respondent Raja Bhattacharya was vacated. It appears that the said order

has not been challenged by the petitioner.

5. It is true that this Court had cancelled the bail qua Birendra

Kumar Singh in Crl.M.C.4444/2013 vide order dated 29.11.2013. It is

now informed that the said accused has since been granted regular bail.

6. The respondents have remained in custody for sufficient

durations in this case. Comprehensive statement of the prosecutrix has

since been recorded. The respondents are not previous convicts and are

not involved in any other criminal case. There are no allegations that after

release, they had tempered with evidence in any manner or misused the

liberty. The petitioner has filed a long list of more than 100 witnesses and

trial is expected to take long time. The respondents cannot be held in

custody in perpetuity. The Trial Court has given detailed reasons in the

impugned order granting regular bail to them. Certain conditions were

also imposed by the Trial Court while granting bail.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no

sufficient reason for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by a

reasoned order. The petitions are dismissed. Pending applications also

stand disposed of.

8. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith with the

copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

JANUARY 14, 2016 / tr