Delhi High Court
Saurabh Chaudhary vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) on 26 March, 2019
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26.03.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 959/2018
SAURABH CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Khosla and Mr. Sarvesh Tyagi, Advs.
For the Respondent : Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the State with
W/SI Rekha
Ms. Sumeeta and Mr. Manish Lamba, Advs. for
complainant
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 37/2018 under Sections
313/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station
Shahbad Dairy.
2. The allegations of the prosecutrix are that she came in contact with
the petitioner while she was studying in Rajasthan. Thereafter they started
talking to each other and became close friends. It is alleged that the
petitioner even took her to his house in the village and families of the
parties are known to each other. Thereafter it is alleged that on 08.11.2016
petitioner took her to a flat of his friend and forcefully assaulted her and
when she objected, he promised to marry her. It is further alleged that
thereafter he made physical relations with her time and again on false
promise of marriage.
3. The petitioner is also alleged to have taken a flat in Rohini for her to
stay and he would visit the said flat every 3-4 days and on false promise of
marriage make physical relations with her.
4. The prosecutrix contends that during this period she became
pregnant and he administered a tablet which led to abortion. As per the
prosecutrix, the petitioner is alleged to have made physical relations last
time on 05.11.2017 and thereafter is alleged to have refused to marry her.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been
falsely implicated. He submits that both the prosecutrix and the petitioner
are adults and the allegation that relation was made forcefully or on false
promise of marriage is not corroborated by any material. He further submits
that there is unexplained delay in making the complaint, which was made
on 21.01.2018 and there is no medical or other evidence corroborating any
of the allegations made by the prosecutrix.
6. Status report has been filed and the same is taken on record. Status
report indicates that the prosecutrix had contended that there were certain
WhatsApp Chat between the prosecutrix and the petitioner with regard to
abortion. Status report indicates that the mobile phones of the petitioner as
well as prosecutrix have been examined by FSL and the FSL report has not
confirmed the allegations made by the prosecutrix. Status report also
indicates that the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has already
been filed.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view
the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner
has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting
officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on petitioner furnishing a
bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer/SHO
concerned. Petitioner shall not do anything that may prejudice either the
trial or the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall not try to contact the
prosecutrix or her family. Petitioner shall not leave the country without the
permission of the Trial Court and shall also surrender his passport, if any,
to the Investigating Officer, if not already done.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 26, 2019/'rs'
