Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 20 November, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order Reserved on: 14th November, 2017
Order Pronounced on: 20th November,2017
+ BAIL APPLN. 2190/2017
SANJEEV KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State with
Inspector C.R. Meena, SHO/ P.S. New
Ashok Nagar.
+ BAIL APPLN. 2191/2017
VIKAS SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State with
Inspector C.R. Meena, SHO/P.S. New
Ashok Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By this common order, I shall dispose of the petitions filed under
Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') whereby the petitioners seek grant of
regular bail in FIR No. 635/2016 under Sections 376-D/328 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO') registered at P.S New
Ashok Nagar, Delhi. The petitioners are stated to be in judicial
custody since 16.12.2016. Status report is on record.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet
was that on 16.12.2016 a complaint was filed wherein the
prosecutrix alleged that on 15.12.2016 at about 09:00 - 09:30 PM
when the prosecutrix was preparing dinner in the kitchen, all the
three accused persons (including the present petitioner) pulled out
the prosecutrix from the window of the kitchen and took her to the
stairs where they committed rape upon her. She alleged that she
was sexually assaulted first by the landlord/Prashant Sharma, then
by accused Vikas Singh/ present petitioner and lastly by accused
Sanjeev/present petitioner. The prosecutrix further alleged that
thereafter the accused persons left the prosecutrix on a table
outside her room and left the spot. The prosecutrix was then woken
up by her aunt and the matter was reported to the police.
3. During the course of investigation it has been revealed that the
prosecutrix is more than 18 years of age and hence chargesheet
against the present petitioners was filed under Sections 376D/328
IPC on 15.04.2017.
4. The previous application filed by the petitioners for seeking regular
bail was dismissed vide order dated 24.10.2017 by the Additional
Sessions Judge, KKD, Delhi. Hence the present petitions.
5. Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners
contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the
present case by the complainant and all the allegations made in the
FIR are concocted and baseless; that the petitioners have not been
named in the statement of the complainant recorded in MLC, FIR
as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; that no TIP proceedings have
been conducted to prove the identity of the petitioners; that the case
of the prosecution is not supported by the FSL Report; that there
are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix
recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C.; that as the investigation
of the case has already been completed and charge sheet has been
filed, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in
judicial custody during the pendency of Trial; that the petitioners
are ready and willing to join investigation and hence in the
aforesaid circumstances the petitioners be released on regular bail
as prayed for.
6. Per contra, Mr. Akshai Malik, learned APP for the State opposed
the bail application of the petitioners and submitted that there are
specific allegations of sexual assault on the person of prosecutrix
against the petitioners; that the petitioners have played an active
role in the commission of the alleged offence as the MLC of the
prosecutrix clearly supports the case of the prosecution; that there
are no material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution
that can cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations; that
there is no question of conducting TIP proceedings as both the
petitioners are residents of the same building where the prosecutrix
resides; that the prosecutrix is yet to be examined and there are
chances of petitioners tampering with the prosecution evidence;
hence, the present bail applications cannot be allowed.
7. Perusal of the complaint reveals that the prosecutrix has made
specific allegations of sexual assault against both the petitioners.
Further in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she
has attributed a specific and definite role to each one of them while
narrating the sequence of events and has given a vivid detail of the
incident as to how and in what manner the petitioners caught hold
of her and committed the alleged offence. Moreover, no material
contradictions are apparent in the statements of the prosecutrix
recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C so as to make
the case of the prosecution doubtful.
8. As per records, the prosecutrix was medically examined soon after
the alleged incident without any significant delay. In the MLC, it
has been stated by the examining doctor therein that the hymen is
torn and the nature of injury is "fresh". Hence the same points out
to a recent coitus.
9. After careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the contents of the FIR in question and other material placed on
record and in view of the serious allegations against the petitioners
and other factors including severity of the punishment prescribed in
law, I find no sufficient ground to grant bail to the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, the petitions stand dismissed.
11. 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 20, 2017//gr
