Delhi High Court
Ripul Sharma vs State on 3 March, 2020
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03.03.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 179/2020
RIPUL SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.P.Sinha along with
Mr. Girik, Mr. Yatharth
Sinha, Mr. Ayush Saini and
Mr. Kushagra Goel,
Advocates.
versus
STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava,
Additional Public Prosecutor
for respondent/State with ASI
Sushma: PSBHD Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of a bail application filed
under section 439 Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioner Ripul Sharma
in FIR No. 382/2019 u/s. 363/376 IPC & 4 POCSO Act, PS
B.H.D.Nagar.
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 judicial custody since 18.08.2019. It is submitted
that investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has
also been filed and petitioner is not required for any investigation. It
is further submitted that CDR clearly shows that the petitioner had
not crossed the boundaries of Delhi on 06.08.2019 and he had not
gone in any restaurant in Bahadurgarh. It is lastly submitted that
petitioner has clean antecedents and he is a permanent resident of
Delhi. It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be released on bail.
3. Ld. APP for the State has opposed the bail application on the
ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in
nature. Petitioner has made sexual intercourse with the victim who
was minor at the time of commission of offence without her
consent. He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of bail application.
4. I have considered the rival submissions. As per prosecution
version, complainant/victim made a complaint alleging that she
came in contact with the petitioner through instagram. On
20.02.2019, petitioner had come at Evergreen School, Jharoda
Kalan, Delhi on his motorcycle and took her to a restaurant at
Bahadurgarh where he forcefully made physical relation with her
without her consent. During the course of investigation, petitioner
was arrested on 18.08.2019. Statement of victim was recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has supported her version
given in her complaint. As per school records, the date of birth of
victim is 22.10.2004. Thus, victim was 14 years, 09 months and 15
days on the date of incident.
5. The above allegations appearing against the petitioner are
serious in nature. There are clear and categorical allegations of
sexual intercourse by the petitioner in the FIR. In her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has again reiterated
the allegations made in her complaint and deposed that petitioner
had taken her to a restaurant in Bahadurgarh and made physical
relations with her. Though, it is the defence of the petitioner that as
per CDR, he has not crossed the boundaries of Delhi and facebook
Messenger chats also belie the alleged incident of physical relations
on 06.08.2019 and prosecutrix has failed to identify the alleged
place of incident at Bahadurgarh but it is settled law that at the stage
of bail, the evidence or defence of the accused cannot be discussed,
examined or analyzed and no mini trial can be conducted while
deciding the bail application.
6. In view of facts appearing on record and keeping in mind the
nature and gravity of offence and also considering the fact that
victim was only 14 years, 9 months and 15 days old at the time of
commission of offence, no grounds for bail are made out at this
stage. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed and stands
disposed of accordingly.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
MARCH 3, 2020
Ak
