Delhi High Court
Madhu Ahuja vs State on 24 December, 2019
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on 24.12.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 3190/2019 & Crl.M.A. 43536/2019
MADHU 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 Madhu 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 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. The allegations against
the petitioner are serious in nature. 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 petitioner and Jyoti, mother and sister of Payal also
used to reside. It is 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 Payal 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 found 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.
6. 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)
