Bikramjit Singh vs The State
2020 Latest Caselaw 1506 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of Decision: 05.03.2020
+        BAIL APPLN. 515/2020

         BIKRAMJIT SINGH                          ..... Petitioner
                      Through:         Mr. K. Kaushik, Advocate.
                      Versus

         STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI               ..... Respondent

                           Through:    Mr. G. M. Farooqui,
                                       Additional Public Prosecutor
                                       for State with W/ASI Sushma
                                       Chaudhary, PS Shalimar
                                       Bagh.
                                       Mr. Siddharth S. Yadav,
                                       Advocate for complainant.
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 438 Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioner Bikramjit

Singh in FIR No. 463/2019 u/s. 376/506 IPC, PS Shalimar Bagh.

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

ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It

is submitted that entire prosecution story is wrong, false and

concocted. In fact, the petitioner was not even residing at BB-58-C,

Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in May, 2018 and he shifted there in July,

2019 only and prior to this, he along with his family had been

residing at BK-36, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.

3. It is submitted that petitioner has joined the investigation

number of times. He was medically examined and he has also

handed over his cell phone to I.O. CDR of his phone has been

collected by the IO and from the CDR, it is clear that the petitioner

never remained in the company of the complainant/ prosecutrix

during the alleged period from May, 2018 to 19.08.2019 and more

particularly, on 19.08.2019 when the prosecutrix alleged the last

incident of inter-course at BB-58-C, Shalimar Bagh. At that time

petitioner was in Dehradun which stands proved from the CDR of

the petitioner.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner is a disabled person and

suffers from 61% disability and his one leg is short due to which he

is unable to move properly. He is chronic heart patient and suffering

from various old age ailments. It is submitted that petitioner is ready

to join investigation. It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be

released on bail in the event of his arrest.

5. 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

without her consent. He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of bail

application.

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

No 463/2019 u/s 376/506 IPC, dated 18.09.2019, PS.Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi, was got registered on the complaint of Smt. 'S' Aged about

30 years regarding rape and blackmailing. On 18.09.19 the

complainant had come to police station Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and

made a written complaint alleging that her husband was working at

the shop of the petitioner Bikaramjeet, who was running a business

of fruits and vegetables at Azadpur, Fruit Mandi, Delhi. She alleged

that she was working as house maid at H. No. BB-58C, Shalimar

Bagh, Delhi, in the house of the petitioner since May 2018. In the

first week of the month of June 2018, the petitioner Bikramjeet gave

a cold drink to the complainant and thereafter she became

unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she was naked

and the petitioner had raped her and also prepared a video of the

same. The petitioner threatened her that if she tells the incident to

anyone he will kill her husband. Thereafter petitioner kept raping

her continuously for more than one year and he lastly raped her on

19.08.2019 at BB-58C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. On the basis of the

complaint, the present case was registered. During the course of

investigation, on 21/9/2019 statement of the victim u/s 164/Cr.P.C.

was recorded wherein she has supported her earlier version.

7. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has contended that CDR of the

phone of the petitioner has been collected by the IO and from the

CDR, it is clear that the petitioner never remained in the company of

the complainant/ prosecutrix during the alleged period from May,

2018 to 19.08.2019 and more particularly, on 19.08.2019 when the

prosecutrix alleged the last incident of inter-course at BB-58-C,

Shalimar Bagh. At that time, the petitioner was in Dehradun which

has been proved from the CDR of the petitioner. I have considered

the contention of Ld. counsel for the petitioner. The authenticity of

the CDR can only be judged at the appropriate stage. It is settled law

that at this stage of bail, the court cannot minutely examine and

analyze the prosecution evidence or defence of the accused as no

mini trial can be conducted while deciding the bail application.

8. Keeping in view the facts appearing on record and the

allegations leveled against the petitioner which are grave in nature

and further keeping in view the fact that petitioner has not only

videographed the alleged incident of sexual intercourse but also

threatened the victim, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out

at this stage. The anticipatory bail application is, therefore,

dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.

BRIJESH SETHI, J

MARCH 5, 2020 Amit