Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 March, 2018
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.03.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 2656/2017
RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kartickay Mathur with Mr. Sanket
Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, APP for the
State.
SI Arti, PS Patel Nagar.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
22.03.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 21437/2017 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 2656/2017
1. The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.314/2017 under
Section 376 IPC, Police Station Patel Nagar.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner is the
boyfriend of the prosecutrix and on the false promise of marriage he
entered into physical relationship with the prosecutrix. It is alleged
that the petitioner assured the prosecutrix that he would get married to
her but subsequently refused to marry her. It is further alleged that on
04.10.2017, the petitioner by deceiving the prosecutrix took her phone
and deleted all the photographs as well as audio-recordings of the
petitioner as well as prosecutrix and after deleting the same stated that
he would not marry her as he had removed all proofs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated and there is no allegation that the
relationship was not consensual. Further, it is contended that though
the allegation of the prosecutrix is that the petitioner had deleted the
alleged photographs and audio-recordings from her phone, she has not
surrendered her phone to the prosecution for the purposes of forensic
examination, which substantiate that the allegations are not correct.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jagdish Nautiyal vs. State: 2013 (1)
JCC 311.
5. Learned APP for the State concedes that the prosecutrix has not
surrendered her phone and, as per the chargesheet, the prosecutrix had
refused to hand over the phone on the ground that the petitioner had
deleted the recordings.
6. The case of the prosecution that the consent of the complainant
for making physical relationship was obtained by misrepresentation or
under the guise of marriage would be established by prosecutrix by
entering into the witness box, prosecution leading appropriate
evidence for which no custodial interrogation or consequent recovery
is required to be made.
7. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, perusal of the
record shows that the petitioner has made out a case for being
admitted to bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail
subject to the petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court.
8. Further, it is directed that the petitioner shall not do anything,
which shall prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.
The petitioner shall not attempt to contact the prosecutrix or her
family members or any of the witnesses. The petitioner shall also not
leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court.
9. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 22, 2018
st
