Delhi High Court
Sanjay vs The State on 13 November, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1427/2017
Order Reserved on: 2nd November, 2017
Order Pronounced on:13th November,2017
SANJAY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Braham Singh with Mr. Rohit
Vidhudi, Mr. N.S. Vidhudi and
Ms. Manju, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE ....Respondent
Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State
with SI Anjani Kumar Singh P.S. Vasant
Kunj South.
Mr. D Hasija, Advocate for complainant
alongwith complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Cr.P.C.') for seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.
292/2017 under Sections 323/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at PS, Vasant Kunj
South.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 01.07.2017 a complaint
was lodged against the petitioner wherein the complainant stated
that in the year 2011 when the petitioner and his sister came to
Delhi in search of a job, they sought space for residing in the
complainant's house on the assurance that they would vacate the
premises as and when they would be able to arrange a separate
accommodation for themselves; that the complainant and her
husband made repeated requests to the petitioner from the past 3-4
years to vacate their house however, the petitioner demanded
money from them to arrange accommodation for himself; that in
February, 2017 the petitioner despite arranging a separate
accommodation, continued to reside in the complainant's house and
also demanded money from them; that the complainant and her
husband handed over an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and later
Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner to vacate the premises; that after
leaving complainant's house, the petitioner started spreading
rumours of illicit relations of complainant with him; that on
16.05.2017, while the complainant was going to work, the
petitioner alongwith co-accused Bablu restricted her way and
physically assaulted her and also threatened her that they would
reveal her nude photographs and videos in their possession, to the
public; that on 20.05.2017 when the petitioner and co-accused
Bablu called the complainant home on the pretext of settling the
matter, the petitioner committed rape upon her and co-accused
Bablu recorded the whole incident on his mobile phone; that on
08.06.2017 the complainant was again stopped by the petitioner
while she was going for work and forcibly made her sign some
papers under threat of making her intimate photos and videos viral;
that on 09.06.2017 the petitioner took the complainant to Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi and obtained her signatures on certain
documents under threats; that hence the present FIR was registered
under Sections 323/376 of IPC.
3. Mr. Braham Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended
that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the
complainant and her husband to extort money and residential
premises of the petitioner; that the present complaint has arisen out
of a family dispute and no criminal case can be made out against
the petitioner; that petitioner is ready to join investigation as and
when required; that hence in the aforesaid circumstances
anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner.
4. Per Contra, Ms. Anita Abraham, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State filed the status report and vehemently
opposed the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner. It is submitted
on behalf of the State that the complainant has specifically stated in
her complaint that the petitioner had taken obscene photographs of
her and that the petitioner may threaten and pressurize her with the
same; that recently also the complainant has been threatened and a
compliant has been made to SHO, P. S. Vasant Kunj; that on this
pretext, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be
rejected.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner in the
present case is known to the complainant being her brother-in-law.
It is apparent that besides specific allegations of sexual assault
against the petitioner, the complainant has also alleged that the
petitioner has been blackmailing and threatening the complainant
with her illicit photographs and videos in his mobile phone. As per
the Status Report dated 11.09.2017, filed on behalf of the State, the
FSL Report in respect of the alleged photographs and videos in the
mobile phone of the petitioner is still awaited. Moreover the
investigation is at a preliminary stage and so far nothing substantial
has been brought forth to make a good ground for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Perusal of the statements of the complainant under Section 161 and
Section 164 Cr.P.C. reveals that the complainant has taken a
consistent stand and both the statements corroborate each other on
material allegations against the petitioner. After recording of the
statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Section
341/354 IPC have also been added. Further it also brought on
record that on 05.08.2017 the complainant has made a fresh
complaint due to repeated threats received from the petitioner and
an FIR No. 436/17 under Section 341/354/509/506 IPC has been
registered.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present
case; and while perusing the allegations levelled against the
petitioner, and considering the nature and gravity of the alleged
offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner at this stage.
9. Accordingly, the petition for grant of anticipatory bail stands
dismissed.
10. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything
observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL.J
NOVEMBER 13, 2017
