Rudra Chaudhary vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2020 Latest Caselaw 390 Del

$~11
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Date of Decision: 21.01.2020
+       BAIL APPLN. 2990/2019
        RUDRA CHAUDHARY                              ..... Petitioner

                           Through:     Mr. Harish Singh, Advocate.

                           versus

        STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                        ..... Respondent

                           Through:     Mr Tarang Srivastava,
                                        APP for State with WSI
                                        Brahmo Devi PS: Kishan
                                        Garh.
                                        Complainant in person.
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 under section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the

petitioner Rudra Chaudhary in FIR No. 351/2019 u/s. 376/506

IPC, PS Kishangarh.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail

on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely

implicated. It is submitted that petitioner is a permanent resident of

Bail Appl. no. 2990/2019 Page no.1 of 5 Delhi and there is no chance of his absconding from justice. The

present FIR has been lodged just to extort money from the petitioner

which is clear from the messages that have been exchanged between

the petitioner and the complainant. It is further submitted that there

is an apprehension that police may arrest the petitioner in present

FIR bearing no. 351/2019. The petitioner has already ready joined

the investigation and in these circumstances, it is prayed that in the

event of arrest, he be released on anticipatory bail.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, in support of its submissions,

has relied upon the following case law:-

1)Rohit Chauhan v. State of NCT ( Delhi) 2013(4) JCC 2801;

2)Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133;

4. I have gone through the above case law. However, the same

are distinguishable on the basis of the facts and circumstances stated

therein.

5. The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the Ld. APP

for the State on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner

are serious in nature. Petitioner has sexually assaulted the

complainant on the pretext of marriage. Petitioner is absconding

Bail Appl. no. 2990/2019 Page no.2 of 5 and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated

against him. He has, therefore prayed for dismissal of the

anticipatory bail application.

6. I have considered the rival submissions. The present case FIR

No. 351/19 u/s. 376/506 IPC, PS Kishangarh, New Delhi was

registered on 16.09.2019 on the statement of

complainant/prosecutrix. She has alleged that in the month of

march/April, 2019, she came in connect with a person namely Rudra

Chaudhary through facebook and they became friends. In the month

of April, 2019 she met the petitioner outside Saket Mall and after

sometime, petitioner accompanied the complainant to her room at

Kishangarh. On the pretext of having a cup of tea, petitioner started

kissing and hugging her and overpowered the complainant and made

sexual relations against her consent/will. After the incident,

petitioner stated the complainant/prosecutrix that he would marry

her and pleaded not to tell anyone about this incident. On

23/04/2019 at around 1.30 p.m, petitioner again came to

complainant/prosecutrix's room in Kishangarh and made physical

relations without her consent. After second incident, complainant

Bail Appl. no. 2990/2019 Page no.3 of 5 felt that petitioner is playing with her emotions and therefore she

told the petitioner that she was going to make a police compliant but

petitioner pleaded to forgive him. After some days, petitioner told

the prosecutrix that he was leaving Delhi as he had got a job in

Chennai. In the month of July, 2019, she went to drop him to the

Airport where petitioner told the prosecutrix that he would never

marry her and also threatened her of dire consequences if she

complained the matter to the police.

7. The above allegations levelled against the petitioner are

serious in nature. He has committed sexual intercourse with the

prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. According to Ld. APP,

complainant/prosecutrix and petitioner were inquired about the chats

provided by the petitioner during hearing of his bail application. It

was claimed by the prosecutrix that her mobile phone was taken

away by the petitioner on 01.06.2019 and returned after some days

but petitioner denied the claim of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, CDRs

of the mobile phones of the petitioner as well as

complainant/prosecutrix were obtained and after analyzing, the

location of mobile phone connection bearing no. 9625029930 of the

Bail Appl. no. 2990/2019 Page no.4 of 5 complainant was at Pandav Nagar (residence of the petitioner) and

Vasant Vihar (work place of the petitioner) which gives credence to

the claim of the complainant. Thus, in view of the nature of the

offence and the allegations which suggest that sexual intercourse

was made by the petitioner on the pretext of marriage, no grounds

for anticipatory bail are made out. The anticipatory bail application

is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.

                                               BRIJESH SETHI, J
JANUARY 21, 2020
Ak




Bail Appl. no. 2990/2019                                 Page no.5 of 5