Delhi High Court
Anshul Malik vs State on 16 April, 2018
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 16th APRIL, 2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 812/2018 & CRL.M.A.No.6704/2018
ANSHUL MALIK ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Anshuman Animesh, Advocate with
Mr.Nipun Katyal, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Radhika Kolluru, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C.in
case FIR No.1219/2017 registered under Sections 376/328 IPC at
Police Station Vijay Vihar. Status report is not on record.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Petitioner's counsel urged that false allegations
have been levelled against the petitioner by the prosecutrix to extort
money. He further contended that there is huge delay in lodging the
FIR by the prosecutrix. During this period, attempt was made by the
prosecutrix through her counsel to extract money from him to settle
the issue. Transcript of the conversation with the counsel has been
placed on record. He further urged that the petitioner had filed a
complaint against the prosecutrix and her counsel but no action was
taken by the police. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the
investigation.
3. On perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner had
filed anticipatory bail applications earlier also. In the petition, the
petitioner disclosed about dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail
application No.2456/2017 by this Court on 30.11.2017 (Annexure
'9'). It is pertinent to note that thereafter, again the petitioner had
filed another bail application No.517/2018 to seek anticipatory bail
before this Court and it came to be dismissed on 07.03.2018.
Apparently, the petitioner has suppressed / concealed this material fact
regarding dismissal of his second bail application on 07.03.2018.
There is no change of circumstances to consider the third anticipatory
bail application moved by the petitioner somewhat on similar grounds.
The petitioner has not joined the investigation and non-bailable
warrants have been issued against him.
4. On perusal of the contents of the FIR, it reveals that there
are serious allegations whereby the petitioner on the pretext of
providing job to the prosecutrix aged around 23 years allegedly
committed rape upon her at his office on the day she was called for an
interview. Record reveals that there were conversation between the
petitioner, the prosecutrix and the so-called prosecutrix's counsel on
several occasions whereby attempt was made to settle the dispute. It
has, however, come on record that the victim's condition had
deteriorated after the occurrence and she had to get medical treatment.
It is so admitted by the petitioner himself in the conversation.
5. The prosecutrix in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded on
28.09.2017 implicated the petitioner and informed that various
whatsapp messages were exchanged even prior to her visit to the
petitioner's office on 12.09.2017 for interview. In the said whatsapp
messages, the petitioner had shown his inclination to have intimate
relationship with the prosecutrix while providing her job as Private
Secretary; it was not accepted by the prosecutrix. Apparently, the
petitioner had ulterior motive even prior to the date of interview and
seemingly intended to have physical relations on the pretext to provide
her job.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence and serious
allegations against the petitioner, it is not a case for grant of
anticipatory bail; it is dismissed.
7. Pending application also stands disposed of.
8. Observations in the order shall have no impact on merits
of the case.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
APRIL 16, 2018 / tr
