Delhi High Court
Sajan Kumar vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 30 November, 2018
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.11.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 2179/2018
SAJAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Rathee, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
30.11.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.159/2018 under Sections
354/376/506(ii) IPC, Police Station Moti Nagar.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant was
working in a factory and the petitioner was also a co-worker in the
factory. It is alleged that he used to misbehave with her and
approximately one month prior to lodging of the complaint he had
committed the offence of rape on her and made a video and thereafter
he is alleged to have used the video to repeat the offence.
3. Status report has been filed, which notes that the complainant
was medically examined and before the doctor she had stated that she
was first assaulted 10 years back and the last act of sexual assault was
about one month back and thereafter she had made physical
relationship with her husband also.
4. Medical examination did not reveal any tender injury and
samples were not taken as history of assault was over one month old
and she had made physical contact with her husband after the alleged
offence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. He submits that the allegations are
pertaining to a period of over 10 years old and there is unexplained
delay in lodging a complaint. Further, he submits that there is no
medical or other evidence to support the allegations except for the oral
statement of the prosecutrix.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no video
was recovered from the cell phone of the petitioner to substantiate the
allegations that he had made a video recording and was threatening
the prosecutrix.
7. The petitioner has been in custody since 04.05.2018.
Investigation is complete and Chargesheet has been filed.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that
petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
9. Accordingly, on 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, petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in
any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice
either the trial or the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall not
directly or indirectly try to contact the prosecutrix. Petitioner shall not
leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court and shall
also surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer.
10. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
NOVEMBER 30, 2018
st
