Delhi High Court
Payal Ahuja vs State on 24 December, 2019
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on 24.12.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 3206/2019 & Crl.M.A. 43591/2019
PAYAL AHUJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr.
Naresh, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. G.M.Farooqui,
APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J.(Oral)
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail
application filed u/s. 438 CrPC by the petitioner Payal Ahuja in FIR
No. 190/2019, u/s. 376(2n), 370/376D/376(3)/109/323/392/506/120B
IPC and Section 6/17/21 of POCSO Act and Section 3/4/5/6/7 of ITP
Act, P.S. Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
on the ground that petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated. It is
submitted that complainant is a bad character of the area and she was
employed as a domestic servant by mother of the petitioner at the
behest of one Shivani. However, one day she had left the house
without informing anyone. It is alleged that complainant had stolen
money and other articles. The allegations qua petitioner are vague and
she has clean antecedents. It is further submitted that petitioner is
ready to join the investigation as and when required. It is, therefore,
prayed that petitioner be released on bail in the event of her arrest.
3. Ld. APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the
ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The
bail application of co-accused Babu Arora has already been dismissed
by this court vide order dated 21.11.2019. He has, therefore prayed for
dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.
4. I have heard the rival submissions. It is alleged by the
complainant that she had an altercation with her family members
and therefore, she had left her house on 25.12.2018. She had,
thereafter, stayed for some time in one Shivani's house who is her
friend. Thereafter she had started living with Payal at WZ-27, Gali
no. 10, Krishna Puri where Madhu and Jyoti, mother and sister of
Payal also used to reside. It is further alleged that at Madhu's
house, different people had sexually assaulted her. One Vikram and
Sahil also used to visit the house of Payal. Thereafter, she had
shifted to Jyoti's house at Q-31, Vikash Vihar, Uttam Nagar where
also 2-3 persons had sexually assaulted her.
5. Statement of victim was also recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. in which she has categorically stated that she was staying
in petitioner's house where petitioner and co-accused Madhu used
to force her into sexual relationship with different people and this
had continued for 2 months. They used to call different people in
the said house. One day she had somehow escaped. However, she
was later on called by Vikram on 13.04.2019 at Dwarka Mor Metro
Station where Vikram, Payal, Jyoti and Sahil were present and they
had snatched her mobile phone. In the meanwhile, police was
informed and Sahil was apprehended. At that time she was
threatened that she would be implicated in the case if the matter is
not sorted out. However, she had gone to police station and got the
complaint registered. In view of the above allegations appearing
on record which are serious in nature and further keeping in mind
the fact that petitioner is avoiding the process of law and
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against
her, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out. The
anticipatory bail application is, therefore, dismissed and stands
disposed of accordingly.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
DECEMBER 24, 2019
(AK)
