Delhi High Court
Mahesh Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 5 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 05, 2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 875/2019 & CRL.M.As. 7237-38/2019
MAHESH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Biswajit S. and Mr. Deepak
Tyagi, Advocates
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with W/SI
Jyoti Singh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 39/19, under Section
376/506 of IPC, registered at police station R.K.Puram, Delhi while
claiming that there is delay of twelve years in lodging this FIR. It is
pointed out that the relationship between petitioner and prosecutrix was
consensual.
Learned counsel for petitioner places reliance upon Supreme
Court's decision in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors. 2019 [1] JCC 217 [SC]. He further submits that
petitioner is working as a cleaner with Northern Railways and since he
has now married elsewhere, therefore, he has been implicated in this case
belatedly. Attention of this Court is drawn to a photograph (Annexure P-
5) to point out that prosecutrix had even attended the marriage ceremony
of petitioner's sister. Pre-arrest bail is sought while relying upon order of
a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bhushan Lal Khanna vs. (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) 2019 AD (DELHI) 163.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State opposes
the application by drawing the attention of this Court to prosecutrix's
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR, statement of prosecutrix
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the decisions cited, it appears
that prosecutrix was not a consenting party. The stand of prosecutrix is
that she was forced by petitioner to establish sexual relations with him
and that petitioner had been misguiding her and was giving false hope to
her in all these years. So, the delay in lodging of FIR by itself would not
justify grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioner. Statement of prosecutrix
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C belies the stand taken on behalf of
petitioner. Reliance place upon order of Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Bhushal Lal (Supra) is misplaced as the said order is distinguishable on
facts. In Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Supra) the charge-sheet for
the offence of rape was quashed as the accused had agreed to marry
prosecutrix and it was not a case of forcibly raping the prosecutrix. In a
somewhat similar case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gaurav
Shukla vs. State 2015 (4) JCC 2728 has declined pre-arrest bail to the
accused.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find it to be a
fit case to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to petitioner.
Accordingly, the applications are dismissed while not commenting
on the merits of this case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 05, 2019
v
