Delhi High Court
Gurdeep Ruhela vs State on 24 September, 2018
$~43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 24th September, 2018
+ BAIL APPL. 2236/2018 & CRL.M.A. 32810/2018
GURDEEP RUHELA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.N. Khanna & Mr. S.V.
Vats, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The first information report (FIR) no. 936/2016 registered by
police station Mukherjee Nagar was lodged on the complaint of
mother of the prosecutrix on 03.12.2016 respecting the suspected
kidnapping of her daughter, described to be 13 years' old on
01.12.2016. Later suspicion about complicity of the petitioner was
expressed. While the police was trying to trace the petitioner, and the
prosecutrix girl, they approached the High Court of Allahabad by writ
petition (civil) no. 57874/2016 on 07.12.2016, inter alia, claiming that
they were married to each other, the marriage having been solemnized
at Prayag, Uttar Pradesh on 04.12.2016. The High Court directed the
ossification test of the prosecutrix to determine her age. It appears,
Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad gave an opinion that the prosecutrix
was aged about 16 to 18 years. The petitioner subsequently moved
this Court by W.P. (Crl.) 122/2017 seeking quashing of the FIR No.
936/2016 in January, 2017. While the said petition was pending,
statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
wherein she seems to have given a version supportive of his claim
about she having accompanied him of her own free will and volition.
It appears directions were given in the said criminal writ petition on
03.03.2017 for the prosecutrix to be accommodated in children's
home and for fresh determination of her age, the petition being
eventually disposed of by order dated 17.05.2017 with observations
that questions of fact required to be determined after investigation.
2. During the course of investigation, the final report whereof is
stated to have been submitted leading to a sessions case being brought
against the petitioner, school records have been traced, the earliest in
which respect relates to a school in Baraout (Baghpat), Uttar Pradesh
where the prosecutrix was enrolled on 04.07.2011 in second standard,
her date of birth being recorded as 09.01.2004. Though it does appear
that there is a different date of birth in another educational school
where the prosecutrix was subsequently enrolled on 02.07.2012 in
sixth standard, it being recorded as 18.06.2003, the earlier record of
school showing the date of birth cannot be ignored.
3. By any reckoning, the prosecutrix was a child on the date she
was taken away from the lawful guardianship, care and control of her
parents, this rendering it to be a case of kidnapping. Since even by the
claim of the petitioner and the statement of the prosecutrix would
show that they eventually entered into some ceremonies in the nature
of marriage on 04.12.2016 and having cohabited thereafter, during her
minority, the ingredients required, prima facie, constituting offences
punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC on one hand and Section 6
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are
made out, in as much as the evidence gathered during investigation
also shows that the petitioner was 34 years' old on the relevant date
and was already married to another person and, therefore, not qualified
to enter into a second marriage with the prosecutrix.
4. Having regard to the grave facts and circumstances, in the
background of serious offences mentioned above, the denial of
release on bail by the court of sessions by order dated 16.08.2018 is
not erroneous. There is no good reason to take a different view.
5. The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
nk
