Rajkumar vs The State (Nct) Of Delhi
2017 Latest Caselaw 626 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   BAIL APPLN. 2558/2016
                                    Date of Decision: February 02nd, 2017

    RAJKUMAR                                                ..... Petitioner
                           Through        Mr.Ashutosh Yadav, Adv.

                  versus

    THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI                 ..... Respondent

Through Mr.M.S. Oberoi, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S. TEJI, J

1. The present application has been filed under Section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner/accused for the

grant of regular bail in FIR No.236/2016, under Sections 376D/342

IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Anand Parbat.

2. The facts as emerge from the records, are that the

prosecutrix, aged 17 years, had made a statement to the police that

she was living at H.No.2087/6A, B-5, Gali No.21, Prem Nagar,

Anand Parbat, Delhi along with her family on rental basis. On

07.05.2016 at about 05.00 p.m., when she was coming down from

the roof, accused Jaswant, nephew of the landlord, picked the

prosecutrix forcibly and took her to a room belonging to another

tenant Rajkumar. When prosecutrix tried to run away, the door hit

on her face. Accused Jaswant made the prosecutrix lay on the bed

whereas accused Rajkumar bolted the door from outside. When

prosecutrix raised alarm, accused Jaswant gagged her mouth.

Accused Jaswant removed his pant and underwear and then broke

the cloth string of the salwar of the prosecutrix. Accused Jaswant

removed the salwar of the prosecutrix and committed rape upon

her. In the evening when the mother of the prosecutrix came to the

house, entire incident was narrated to her.

3. On the basis of statement of the prosecutrix, FIR of the

instant case was registered. During the course of investigation,

statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was

recorded in which she reiterated the allegations made in the

original complaint. Both the accused persons were arrested. After

completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.

4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as learned APP for the State were heard.

5. Argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that

there is delay of four days in registration of the FIR which creates

doubt about the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he

had no role to play in the same. The accused was not present at the

spot at the time of alleged incident.

6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposed the

bail application on the ground that the petitioner had played an

active role in the commission of rape upon the prosecutrix. He had

helped his co-accused Jaswant and stood as guard outside the room

and even bolted the room from outside when the rape was

committed. It is further submitted that the seriousness of the

offence does not warrant the concession of bail to the petitioner.

7. Perusal of record shows that there are specific allegations

against the petitioner/accused Rajkumar. The complainant has

specifically stated that when she was taken to the room of the

accused Rajkumar forcibly by accused Jaswant, at that time

accused Rajkumar was standing outside his room. When

prosecutrix tried to come out of that room, accused Rajkumar

bolted the door from outside after which the rape was committed

upon the prosecutrix. The present case is a case of gang rape in

which specific role has been attributed to the petitioner/accused.

8. Even otherwise, it is apparent from the record that the rape

was committed upon a minor girl and that was the reason for

invoking the provision of POCSO Act in the instant case.

9. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances,

seriousness of the offence and the fact that the trial is at the initial

stage and there is apprehension of influencing the prosecution

witnesses, this Court is not inclined to release the

accused/petitioner on bail.

10. 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.

11. With aforesaid directions, the present bail application stands

dismissed.

P.S.TEJI, J FEBRUARY 02, 2017 dd