Rahul Singh vs State
2019 Latest Caselaw 4439 Del

$~43
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of decision: 18.09.2019

+      BAIL APPLN. 2336/2019
       RAHUL SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                         Through:     Mr. Sugam Kumar Jha, Ms. Tanu
                                      Priya Gupta and Ms. Shailja Gupta,
                                      Advs.
                         versus

       STATE                                            ..... Respondent
                         Through:     Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State
                                      with ASI Asha Bisht, PS - Chanakya
                                      Puri
                                      Mr. Girdhar Govind and
                                      Mr. Baljinder Singh, Adv. for
                                      complainant/ prosecutrix

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                         J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Vide the present application, the applicant/ accused seeks directions

thereby to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with

FIR No. 87/2019 registered at Chanakyapuri Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC on such terms and condition as this

Court may deem fit and proper.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the

applicant and prosecutrix used to go out for late-night dinners and parties

and in most cases, the applicant used to pay for the outings. When the

applicant used to meet his colleagues, the prosecutrix always insisted on

accompanying him. It reached an extent that it used to be very

uncomfortable for the applicant to see the prosecutrix alone amongst men in

an intoxicated state. There have also been incidents when the applicant

showed his discomfort towards the same and the prosecutrix used to abuse

the applicant alleging him to be a narrow-minded man who does not deserve

anyone's love.

3. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix and applicant got

physically involved as the applicant was in severe depression due to the

medical condition of his mother and the pending divorce proceedings with

his wife. The prosecutrix took such a gesture of the applicant as that of true

love and never questioned his intentions.

4. Subsequently, as the demands of the prosecutrix started growing and

when the applicant was unable to fulfil them due to shortage of money, their

relationship started to turn sour. It went to such an extent that the applicant

was humiliated in public by the prosecutrix and words like 'kadka' and

'nanga' were used against him. The prosecutrix used to abuse the mother of

the applicant as well, even though at the beginning of the relationship she

encouraged the applicant to spend more time with her. Subsequently, she

started asking the applicant why he is spending so much on her medicines

considering her age.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the physical relations between

the applicant and the prosecutrix were consensual and section 376 IPC does

not attract in this case.

6. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of State submits

that the petitioner was married, however, he still gave false promises of

marriage to prosecutrix and, accordingly, she agreed to have physical

relations. He further submits that the applicant was not supposed to conceal

marriage and should not have given false promises to many to the

prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had physical relations with applicant on false

promise, but on one day, as per the statement recorded under Section 164

Cr.P.C., the applicant gave beer to her which was spiked with some

intoxication and at that point of time, when she was not in her senses, the

applicant took advantage of that and had sexual intercourse with prosecutrix

without her consent.

7. The FIR mentioned above is registered on the basis of written

complaint of the prosecutrix. She stated in the complaint that in the month of

January, 2019, when she was working at PVR Chanakyapuri, at around 7.00

-7.30 PM, one person, namely, Rahul Singh (applicant herein), came to her

and told her that he was not feeling well due to stomach pain. So, as per her

duty, she gave him luke warm water and then he requested for ENO. She

requested her staff to get the ENO medicine and they gave him the same.

After few days, the applicant sent her a message on facebook messenger by

stating 'Thank you 'S'., you helped me'.

8. After few days, the applicant again came to PVR Chanakyapuri

Cinema and he personally spoke to her and thanked her and he also told her

that he was working with MPs (Members of Parliament) and after talking for

a while, they both became good friends and exchanged their numbers.

Applicant used to visit the prosecutrix at her office to pick and drop her and

they both used to have lunch together almost everyday.

9. In the month of March, 2019, applicant proposed the prosecutrix for

marriage at India Gate. She trusted him. As he kept a very warm and loving

behaviour towards her, she accepted his marriage proposal. At first, the

applicant took her to his friend's place (home) at Chanakya Puri and got

intimate with her. After that applicant used to take her to different OYO

Rooms at various times and got physical with her. On 10.03.2019, applicant

took the prosecutrix to the Eros Garden OYO Rooms and made physical

relations with her. Thereafter, he regularly took her to the OYO Rooms i.e.

13.03.2019, 20.03.2019, 31.03.2019 and he had physical relations with her

everytime. In the month of May, 2019, applicant took the prosecutrix to the

OYO Room and on that day, the prosecutrix asked applicant as to when they

were getting married, to which the applicant replied that they will marry in

the month of November or after Diwali. However, on 29.06.2019, the

prosecutrix came to know that she was pregnant and she immediately

informed to the applicant in reply to which he asked her not to worry and

advised her to take contraceptive pill. Afterwards, he came and gave her

some contraceptive pills for not conceiving. On 04.07.2019, applicant and

the prosecutrix also stayed in OYO, NFC. On 31.07.2019, applicant took the

prosecutrix to OYO Kapoor Inn in Greater Kailash and again, they had

physical relations. On that night, the prosecutrix came to know that the

applicant was already married with a girl 'P' and his divorce case was also

going on. Thus, he had physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage

and had raped her thereon.

10. On the basis of written complaint made by the prosecutrix, the FIR in

question was registered against the applicant. But, fact remains that the

applicant and the prosecutrix had frequent physical relations at different

hotels and at different places. Even on 31.07.2019, when she came to know

that applicant was married, they had physical relations with each other.

11. In view of above facts without commenting on the merits of the case,

I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

12. Accordingly, the SHO/Arresting Officer/IO concerned, is hereby

directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner/ applicant be released on

bail on the following terms and conditions:-

(i) That the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of

₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of

Arresting Officer/SHO/IO concerned;

(ii) That the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make

himself available for interrogation before police officer, as and when called;

(iii) That applicant shall not contact directly and indirectly to any of

the prosecution witnesses.

In case of default of aforementioned conditions, the State is at liberty

to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

13. Application stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.

14. Order dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 PB