Delhi High Court
Rani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 December, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on 23rd November, 2017
Order pronounced on 6th December, 2017
+ BAIL APPLN. 2394/2017
RANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arpit Bhalla, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State
with SI Sunder Police Station- Baba
Haridas Nagar, New Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. The present application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
seeking Regular Bail in case FIR No. 170/2017 under Section
365/387/377/379/506/332/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered
at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar, New Delhi.
2. The instant case was registered on the complaint of the Ramesh
Khatri alleging that on 28.08.2017 at about 9: 00 PM he received a
call from the applicant to meet her at Nangloi Stand, Najafgarh;
that the complainant reached there in his car and the applicant sat
on the front seat in the car and asked the complainant to
accompany her to her house; that when he refused, two other
co-accused came and sat on the rear seat and compelled the
complainant to drive on their directions whereas two other
co-accused followed them on bike; that accused persons forcibly
BAIL APPLN. 2394/2017 Page 1 of 3
took the complainant to a rented accommodation where he was
confined and beaten up by accused persons; that one of the accused
person had unnatural sex with the complainant, videographed the
incident and the accused persons including the applicant demanded
Rs. 23 Lacs on the ground that they would upload the said video on
social media and defame him if their demand is not fulfilled; that
the complainant was robbed of Rs. 85,000/-, ATM card, PAN card
and a gold ring which were lying in his car.
3. Mr. Arpit Bhalla, learned counsel for the applicant has contended
that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case;
that there is an unexplained delay of 3 days in reporting the
incident to the police; that there is no medical report to support the
claim of the complainant; that the allegation under section 377 IPC
unnatural sex as alleged by the complainant does not constitute
against the applicant; that the incident occurred in a crowded place
which suggests that the complainant has voluntarily accompanied
the applicant; that the complainant himself stated in the FIR that
gold ring, cash and ATM were lying in his car which shows that
the allegation of stealing these articles is a part of the concocted
story of the complainant.
4. Learned APP for the State opposed the regular bail application and
submits that the applicant is actively involved in the present case
along with other co-accused; that the applicant also denied to join
the TIP proceedings; that the gold ring was also recovered from the
possession of the applicant which points towards her involvement
in the commission of the crime.
BAIL APPLN. 2394/2017 Page 2 of 3
5. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and
also gone through the material placed before this Court.
6. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the robbed gold ring of
the complainant was recovered from the possession of the
applicant; that she refused to join the TIP proceedings; that the
applicant handed over the mobile phone allegedly used for
extorting money, to co-accused Sandeep @ Rinku, who is a
habitual offender of such crimes; that Call Details Record of the
mobile phone which is allegedly used for making call depicts the
location of Kunwar Singh Nagar where co-accused Sandeep @
Rinku, Delhi resides which goes to show that the accused persons
had conspired to extort money from the complainant.
7. Furthermore, there was no denial on behalf of the applicant that she
was present in the car at the time of alleged commission of crime.
As per the FIR, abduction was done in her presence and she never
reported the incident to the police.
8. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not
inclined to grant the regular bail to the applicant in this case and
the present application is dismissed.
9. Before parting with the aforesaid order, it is made clear that
anything observed by this Court in the present application shall not
have any bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,J.
December 06, 2017 / gr//
