Delhi High Court
Sachin Mann vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 9 April, 2018
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.04.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 476/2018
SACHIN MANN ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Choudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State.
SI Tejwati, PS Alipur.
Mr. Gaurav Chitkara with Mr.
Ankit Sethi, Advocates for the
complainant.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
09.04.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The Nominal Roll of the petitioner has been received. The same is
taken on record. As per the Nominal Roll, the petitioner was arrested on
03.02.2018 and, as on 03.04.2018, has already undergone two months of
imprisonment.
2. The petitioner seeks Regular Bail in FIR No.48/2018 under Sections
376/323/506 IPC, Police Station Alipur. The allegations in the FIR are that
the prosecutrix and the petitioner were known to each other for the last 3-4
years and had even travelled out of station. It is alleged by the prosecutrix
that the relation between the prosecutrix and the petitioner was even known
to her husband. It is alleged that the consensual physical relationship was
established several times. However, on 01.02.2018, the petitioner
physically assaulted the complainant and forced himself upon her without
her consent, consequent to which, the subject FIR has been lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that both the parties
are married and, as per the allegations, had indulged in consensual
relationship for over 3-4 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the complainant had travelled with the petitioner out of station also and,
to substantiate the said contentions, has placed on record several
photographs, which, it is contended, were taken by the prosecutrix herself
with her cell phone and show that the relationship was more than mere
friendship. It is submitted that in her supplementary statement she has
admitted the photographs and stated that whenever people travel on holiday
selfies are taken.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no
medical evidence to substantiate the fact that the petitioner forced himself
on the prosecutrix on 01.02.2018 or physically assaulted her. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further contends that even the husband of the
prosecutrix has given a statement to the Investigating Officer that he was
aware of the relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix and
further that she had even attempted to instigate him to lodge a false
complaint against one of his debtors.
5. Learned APP for the State, under instructions from the Investigating
Officer, submits that no complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix on
01.02.2018. The complaint was lodged on 02.02.2018 and she was
immediately taken for medical examination.
6. It is noticed in the record that the petitioner had changed her clothes
and had taken a bath before lodging the compliant. MLC shows that no
fresh injury marks and evidence of sexual assault were found.
7. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, perusal of the
records shows that the petitioner has made out a case for being enlarged on
bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be
released on bail, on furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with
one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, if not
required in any other case.
8. The petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of
the Trial Court. The petitioner shall not do anything, which shall prejudice
either the trial or the prosecution witnesses and the petitioner and his family
shall not make any attempt to contact the prosecutrix or her family
members.
9. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 09, 2018
st
