Pawan Bhati vs State (Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi)
2019 Latest Caselaw 6190 Del

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Judgment delivered on 03.12.2019

+      BAIL APPLN. 2461/2019

       PAWAN BHATI                                  ..... Petitioner

                          Through:     Mr. Charan Singh, Advocate.
                          versus

       THE STATE(GOVT. of NCT of Delhi              ..... Respondent

                          Through      Mr. G.M.Farooqui,
                                       APP for State.
                                       SI Rajeshwar:
                                       PS Palam Village
CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI

                              JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J.(Oral)

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of a bail application filed u/s.

439 CrPC by the petitioner Pawan Bhati in FIR No. 151/2019, u/s.

363/366/376/506/34 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Palam

Village, Delhi.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground

that petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated. He is well educated

person and has clean antecedents. It is submitted that petitioner is

distant cousin of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was introduced to the

main accused Pawan s/o Amar Singh by the petitioner. The present

case was got registered just to extort money and to harass the

petitioner. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has given

different statements at different stages and has even mentioned that

the petitioner was not there when she met the main accused at

Connaught Place. It is submitted that since investigation is complete

and charge sheet has been filed and custodial interrogation is not

required and therefore, petitioner be released on bail in the interest of

justice.

3. Ld. APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the

ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.

Petitioner has played an active role in arranging alleged marriage of

the prosecutrix with main accused Pawan and he had also got prepared

false documents of age of the victim in order to get marriage

certificate from the court. He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of

the bail application.

4. I have considered the rival submissions. As per prosecution

version, the present case was registered on the complaint of Mr.

"M" brother of prosecutrix on 31.03.2019, who alleged that his

sister "X" aged 17 years was kidnapped from her house on

24.03.2019. Later on during investigation, complainant "M"

informed IO SI Ravinder that marriage of his sister has been

performed with Pawan. Accused Pawan was arrested from PS

Welcome New Delhi on 18.04.2019. Statement of victim „X‟ was

recorded u/s 161 CrPC, wherein she has alleged that one month ago

she had met Pawan through petitioner who is her cousin. Pawan

had taken her mobile number and started talking to her. Later on,

he started alluring her and on 24.03.2019, Pawan had called victim

„X‟ at Connaught Place Delhi. When she reached there, she found

Pawan with his friend Gautam and Priya. Later on Pawan had

taken her to Loni Railway Station assuring that he wanted to marry

her and they will live together. She refused to do so. However,

Pawan took her mobile and threatened her with dire consequences

and took her to Baraut UP by train. Thereafter, on the same day on

24.03.2019, he brought her at his room at Barbarpur, Delhi. On

25.03.2019, Pawan took her at BehtaItwar Bazar, UP where he had

taken a room on rent. Thereafter in the night of 25.03.2019, Pawan

made physical relations with her. Accused Pawan married her at

Gaziabad Court and at Arya Samaj Mandir against her wishes. The

Victim has alleged that Pawan used to make physical relations with

her daily. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was

recorded by Mr. Udit Jain, Ld. MM Dwarka Court wherein she has

stated that on 24.03.2019, she went to meet Pawan at Connaught

Place, where his two more friends were with him. They took her

forcibly to Ghaziabad Court and got prepared the marriage

certificate. Pawan had snatched her mobile phone. They all three

were together. Pawan was caught by police and she was released.

As per school certificate date of birth of victim is 08.05.2002.

5. In the present case, charge-sheet under Section 363/366/506

IPC has been filed in the Court. Perusal of the record reveals that

apart from statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., one more

supplementary statement of prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

was also recorded wherein she has categorically stated that

petitioner i.e. Pawan Bhati S/o Dharam Pal used to come to her

residence. On 13.02.1019, Pawan Bhati had called her and asked

her to come to Connaught Place where he had discussed about

Pawan and told her that Pawan is his very good friend and is

working in Goyal Clinic, Babarpur, Shahadra. Petitioner Pawan

Bhati also took her to the residence of Pawan S/o Amar and

asked her to marry him. She refused to do so and on this, the

petitioner got annoyed. After 4-5 days, she received a call from

Pawan S/o Amar who disclosed that he had taken her number from

petitioner. She blocked her mobile number but petitioner created

pressure upon her to talk to co-accused Pawan S/o Amar. It has

also come in the supplementary statement of prosecutrix that when

co-accused Pawan and Gautam took prosecutrix to Baraut, U.P. via

train, the petitioner was also present there and had asked her to

marry Pawan otherwise no one will come to know where she has

gone. He also told her that he has prepared all the documentation

relating to her marriage. It has also come in the statement of

prosecutrix that all the three accused persons told her that they

would make such documents which will show that her age is above

18 years. She has further stated that co-accused Pawan, Pawan

Bhati (the petitioner) and Gautam had forcibly made false

documents showing her age as 18 years and forcibly married her

with co-accused Pawan at Ghaziabad court and Arya Samaj

Mandir. Perusal of the statement of prosecutrix, who is 17 years

old clearly reveals that she has been forcibly married to co-accused

Pawan and petitioner Pawan Bhati has performed an active role in

the same. Keeping in view the age of the prosecutrix, her forcible

marriage with co-accused Pawan and active role played by the

petitioner and gravity of offence, no grounds for bail are made out.

The bail application is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of

accordingly.

BRIJESH SETHI, J DECEMBER 03, 2019 (AK)