Sachindra Priyadarshi vs State
2020 Latest Caselaw 1661 Del

$~2

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of Decision: 18.03.2020
+        BAIL APPLN. 201/2020
         SACHINDRA PRIYADARSHI                ..... Petitioner
                           Through:    Mr. Gopal Jha and Mr.
                                       Shreyash Bhardwaj,
                                       Advocates.
                           versus
         STATE (NCT ) OF DELHI                ..... 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 a bail application filed

under section 439 Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioner Sachindra

Priyadarshi in FIR No. 387/2019 u/s. 328/376/323/506 IPC, PS

Mandawali Fazalpur.

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 21.12.2019. There is no absolutely no

material available to connect the petitioner with the commission of

offence. It is submitted petitioner has been falsely implicated by the

prosecutrix as petitioner's marriage has been fixed and finalized by

his parents which annoyed the prosecutrix and this fact is evident

from the chat and conversation between the petitioner and

prosecutrix. It is further submitted that there was no physical

relationship between the prosectrix and petitioner and no promise

for marriage was ever made by the petitioner. Exchange of messages

between the victim and petitioner does not suggest that victim was

under threat. Police has completed the investigation and custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is not required. It is, therefore, prayed

that petitioner be released on bail in the interest of justice.

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

submissions, has relied upon the following case law:-

a. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608;

b. Rohit Chauhan v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 SCC Online Del 2016.

4. I have gone through the above case law. It is a settled law

that each bail application is to be decided on the basis of its

peculiar facts and circumstances. No straitjacket formula can be

laid own for dispose of the bail application. So far as the cases

cited by Ld. Counsel are concerned, these are distinguishable on

the basis of the facts and circumstances stated therein.

5. Ld. APP for the State has opposed both the bail application

on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious

in nature. Petitioner has not only made physical relation with the

prosecutrix but also took her objectionable photo and video. Ld.

APP, has therefore, prayed for dismissal of bail application.

6. I have considered the rival submissions. As per prosecution

version, on 29.11.2019 a complaint was made by prosecutrix in

which she has alleged on 22.09.2018, petitioner called her at his

house and when she reached there, petitioner offered a glass of cold

drink and after consuming the same, she became unconscious.

When she gained consciousness, there was no clothe on her body

and petitioner told her that he had made sexual relationship with

her as he liked her too much and could not control himself.

Petitioner also threatened her that if she disclosed this thing to

anybody, he will upload her naked photos and videos on social

media. Under threat the petitioner made physical relation with her

several time. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

was recorded in which she had corroborated all the facts made in

her complaint. During investigation, two mobile phone of the

petitioner were seized to substantiate the allegations of taking

obscene photos and videos of the victim. All the seized exhibits

have been sent to FSL for expert opinion and the result of the same

is still awaited.

7. The above allegations appearing against the petitioner are

serious in nature. Petitioner has made physical relations with the

prosecutrix many times on the threat of uploading her nude photos

and video on social media. Petitioner has also made false promise

of marriage. Prosecutrix got pregnant twice but petitioner got the

pregnancy aborted without consulting any Doctor. Keeping in mind

the nature and gravity 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 18, 2020 AK