Delhi High Court
Raj Bahadur @ Bahadur Singh vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 20 August, 2018
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20.08.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 1401/2018
RAJ BAHADUR @ BAHADUR SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Virender Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
20.08.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.239/2018 under
Sections 376/506 of the IPC at Police Station Karol Bagh.
2. The allegations of the complainant are that the petitioner had
allured her to make her a LIC agent and thereafter on 04.04.2018 he
called her for a meeting. When she got down at the metro station at
Rajendra Place, the petitioner is alleged to have taken her in a car and
roamed around for about an hour and a half in the vehicle. Thereafter
he is alleged to have taken her to a hotel i.e. OYO Hotel, Gold Place,
Karol Bagh. She was taken to one room where the petitioner is alleged
to have committed the offence of rape with her. It is alleged that when
the co accused wanted to make physical relationship, she shouted, on
which they got scared. Thereafter they threatened her by showing her
a video of the alleged offence and threatened to make the same viral.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that in the statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C there is substantial improvement. It is
alleged in the said statement that the complainant wanted a loan of
Rs.2 lakhs and thereafter the petitioner is alleged to have allured her
to make her a LIC agent. He further submits that there is a new
allegation that the petitioner has allegedly given her a cold drink
mixed with some intoxicant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no
material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. He submits
that complainant had refused medical examination and there is
substantial unexplained delay in registration of the FIR as the alleged
offence is of 04.04.2018 and the complaint is lodged on 10.05.2018.
Further he submits that there is no incriminating material and even the
CCTV footage alleged to have been seized by the prosecution from
the hotel does not establish the presence of either the complainant or
the accused in the hotel on the alleged date and time of the incident.
5. He further submits that the Investigating agency has not
established any call connection between the petitioner as well as the
complainant or even the call detail records has not been obtained to
establish the presence in the hotel.
6. Petitioner was granted interim protection by order dated
15.06.2018, subject to joining investigation. Learned APP submits
that petitioner did join investigation.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, on perusal of
the records, I am satisfied that the petitioner has been able to make
out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest,
petitioner shall be released on bail by the IO/arresting officer/SHO
concerned, on petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the SHO/IO/Arresting Officer. Petitioner shall not do anything which
may prejudice either the investigation, trial or the prosecution
witnesses. Petitioner shall not make any endeavour to contact the
prosecutrix or her family. Petitioner shall not leave the country
without the permission of the Trial Court.
8. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
9. Order Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 20, 2018/rk
