Delhi High Court
Prahalad Ram vs State on 28 February, 2020
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28.02.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 3124/2019 & CRL M.B 2191/2019
PRAHALAD RAM ..... Petitioner
Through: MR. Adit S.Pujari, Mr.
Chaitanya Sundraiyal and Ms.
Tusharika Mattoo, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF DELHI NCT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. G.M.Farooqui, Ld. APP
for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of two bail applications filed
under section 439 Cr.P.C; one for regular bail and another for
interim bail during the pendency of the main application on behalf
of the petitioner Prahalad Ram in FIR No. 49/2019 u/s.
376/354/506 IPC, PS Tughlak Road.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the
ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
Petitioner is in custody since 17.07.2019. It is submitted
chargesheet in the present case already stands filed and the only
evidence brought on record are the statements of the
Complainant/her husband and CDRs. There is evidently no
possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence after filing
of the chargesheet. It is further submitted that Call Data Record of
the Prosecutrix shows that she has made over hundred phone calls to
the petitioner in the period between 20.03.2019 to 24.04.2019 but
the petitioner made no calls to the prosecutrix after she moved out.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to
submit and cooperate in case of any further investigation and
undertakes not to contact any witnesses or tamper with any
evidence. It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be released on bail in
the interest of justice.
4. Ld. APP for the State has opposed both the bail applications
i.e. interim as well as regular on the ground that the allegations
against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further submitted
that on the pretext of job, petitioner made physical relations with the
prosecutrix several times. Ld. APP, has therefore, prayed for
dismissal of bail application.
5. I have considered the rival submissions. On 15.07.2019 a
complaint was made by prosecutrix in which she has alleged that
she worked as helper at Kothi No 3, Janpath Moti Lal Nehru Marg,
New Delhi from January, 2018 to May, 2019 where petitioner was
also working as cook. Petitioner premised the victim that he could
arrange a job for her and for her daughter. In April, 2019, petitioner
came to her servant quarter and made physical relations with her
without her consent and threatened her that if she wanted job and
safety of her son, she should work as per his directions. After this
incident, petitioner again made physical relations with the
prosecutrix twice. Later on, victim vacated the servant quarter but
petitioner followed her and asked her to meet. Victim made a
complaint in this regard and the present FIR bearing no. 49/2019
under Section 376/354/506 IPC was registered. During
investigation, statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
was recorded. Statements of residents of servant quarters were
recorded and call details of the petitioner and prosecutrix with her
husband were also taken from concerned Nodal officers. According
to call detail record, many calls were made to the prosecutrix by the
petitioner and prosecutrix also called the petitioner.
6. The above allegations appearing against the petitioner are
serious in nature. On the pretext of arranging job, the petitioner has
raped the victim thrice and also threatened her. Keeping in mind the
nature and gravity of offence, no grounds for bail are made out at
this stage. Both the bail applications i.e. interim as well as regular
one are, therefore, dismissed and stand disposed of accordingly.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2020
AK & AP
