Gulshan Kumar @ Gulli vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2017 Latest Caselaw 675 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   BAIL APPLN. 125/2017
                                   Date of Decision: February 06th, 2017
    GULSHAN KUMAR @ GULLI                 ..... Petitioner
                Through: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Meghna
                         Sharma, Advocates


                  versus

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

                  Through:               Mr. Sundershan Joon, Additional
                                         Public Prosecutor 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.379/2016, under Sections

342/354/354-B/354-D/363/34 IPC read with Section 8 of the

POCSO Act and 67-B/67 of the I.T. Act, Police Station Vasant

Kunj North.

2. The facts, emerging from the record, are that the

complainant/prosecutrix had made a statement to the police that

she was student of class 10th and she was aged 16 years. She had a

Facebook ID which the prosecutrix was using for the last about 1½

years. About 6-7 months back, a friend request was received from

one Gulli which was accepted by the prosecutrix, and they had

been subsequently chatting with each other. One day, Gulli asked

the prosecutrix to meet him. When the prosecutrix was coming

from her school, Gulli was found waiting in the DESU street along

with a boy. Gulli asked the prosecutrix to have a talk with him.

Thereafter, those boys took the prosecutrix to a nearby house by

deceitful means where Gulli started forcing himself upon the

prosecutrix. Gulli undressed the prosecutrix and clicked her

photographs. The prosecutrix raised an alarm and managed to get

out from there. Due to fear, she could not narrate the incident to

anyone but blocked the facebook ID of Gulli. Prior to filing of

FIR, Gulli sent the photographs which were clicked by him from

the same facebook ID. Thereafter, a friend request was received

from one Sonia Singh which was accepted by the prosecutrix.

Later on it was revealed that the said ID was not of a girl rather it

was of a boy and upon finding this out, the prosecutrix stopped

chatting. A phone number was sent on the facebook and

prosecutrix was asked to make a call on the said number. The

prosecutrix made a call to the said phone number from the mobile

phone of her neighbour. A boy was talking from the other side of

the phone who did not disclose his name and told the prosecutrix to

talk on facebook else her photographs would be uploaded publicly

on facebook. Thereafter, ID of Sonia Singh was blocked by the

prosecutrix. On 22.07.2016, neighbour Vivek of the prosecutrix

informed her that he had been receiving calls on his mobile phone

asking for Sonia Singh. When prosecutrix checked her facebook,

she found her nude photographs on the facebook ID of Sonia Singh

which were clicked by accused Gulshan @ Gulli.

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

the instant case was registered. Accused was arrested and his

mobile phone was seized wherein the nude photographs of the

prosecutrix were found saved. Statement of the prosecutrix under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she reiterated the

allegations made by her in the complaint made to the police.

During investigation, the facebook ID of accused was checked and

it was found that nude photographs of the prosecutrix were

uploaded by him.

4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State were heard.

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

nothing incriminating has come on record against the petitioner.

The petitioner is in judicial custody since last about 8 months.

There is no evidence to show any link of petitioner with Sonia

Singh whose ID was allegedly used to upload the pictures of the

prosecutrix. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix in her cross

examination admitted that on the date of incident she was at her

home. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are false.

6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has argued that

the offence committed by the accused is a serious one. Firstly, the

accused took the prosecutrix to a house under deceitful means and

then tried to force himself upon the prosecutrix and then he had

taken nude photographs of the prosecutrix after undressing her.

Thereafter, the nude photographs were uploaded by the accused on

the internet which maligned the reputation of the prosecutrix.

7. From the facts brought on record and the submissions made

by both the sides, it is apparent that the prosecutrix has specifically

stated that she was taken to a house by the accused under deceitful

means where her clothes were removed by the accused. She has

also stated that the accused tried to force himself upon her and then

had taken several nude photographs which were later on uploaded

on the internet.

8. The allegations levelled against the accused are serious in

nature in view of the fact that firstly he tried to force upon the

prosecutrix and then after removing her clothes, he had taken

photographs of the prosecutrix which were subsequently uploaded

on the internet. In this way, the accused has maligned the

reputation and chastity of the prosecutrix. In a civilised society,

these types of acts are unwarranted. So far the contentions raised

by the counsel for the petitioner are concerned, no comment on the

same can be made at this stage as the same are subject matter of

trial and the same can be answered only at the time of passing final

judgment.

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

the seriousness of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant the

concession of bail to the accused.

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 06, 2017/dd