Gurdev Singh @ Suraj vs State
2020 Latest Caselaw 1662 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Judgment Reserved On: 06.12.2019
                              Judgment Pronounced On: 18.03.2020

+        BAIL APPLN. 2757/2019 & Crl.M.A. 39627/2019

    GURDEV SINGH @ SURAJ                  ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Ms. M.Theepa along with Mr.
                           Mukesh Kr., Mr. Anand Kr.
                           Pandey and Mr. Anil Sharma,
                           Advocates.
                  versus
    THE STATE
    (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)       ..... Respondent
                  Through  Mr. G.M.Garooqui for
                           the State.
                           SI Anshu Kadian: PS Tilak
                           Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
                     JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J.

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of a bail application u/s 439

Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner Gurdev Singh @ Suraj in FIR No.

307/2019, u/s. 354D/366/342/451/376/506 IPC, P.S. Tilak Nagar,

Delhi.

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 19.08.2019. The present case was got

registered just to extort money and to harass the petitioner. Ld. Trial

court has failed to consider and appreciate the fact that physical

relations between the prosecutrix and the petitioner were consensual

and no forceful injury marks were found on the body of the

prosecutrix. There are several contradictions in the statement of the

prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in the FIR.

There is a delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted

that as per MLC, no external injury marks were seen. Ld. Trial Court

has failed to consider the fact that it was the proseturix who had

herself invited the petitioner to the hotel to indulge into sexual

intercourse. It is further submitted that petitioner is aged about 21

years and has deep roots in the society. It is further submitted that

sections 354D/366/343/376/451/506 IPC are not made out against the

petitioner as he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. It is further

submitted that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been

filed and therefore, petitioner be released on bail in the interest of

justice.

3. Ld. APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the

ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.

Petitioner has made forceful sexual relationships with the victim. The

conduct of petitioner is also under cloud as he was an absconder

during the course of investigation and proceedings under Section 82

Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. Statement of the victim is yet to be

recorded. Ld. APP has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the bail

application.

4. I have considered the rival submissions. The prosecution

version is that on 07/8th June, 2019, petitioner had sent phone

messages to the victim to meet him at her Bua's residence. When she

went to her Bua's residence, petitioner met her near her bua's

residence and took her to Gurudwara Fateh Nagar in his car. After

sitting in the car, petitioner locked the car and offered her Coke and

after drinking the same, she had become unconscious. Thereafter, the

petitioner had taken her to a hotel near Airport and there he had put

vermillion and made her wear Chura etc. and established forceful

physical relationship with her and then dropped her near Gandhi

Cycle, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, victim lodged a complaint to

the police and present FIR bearing no. 307/2019 was recorded.

5. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the petition that there are

material contradictions in the statement of prosecution recorded under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in the FIR. However, this court is of

the view that at the stage of bail, the evidence need not be discussed

and examined or analyzed in detail and no mini trial can be conducted

while deciding the bail application. Moreover, statement of victim is

yet to be recorded in the court. The offence committed by the

petitioner is serious in nature. As per prosecution version, he has

made forceful physical relations with the victim on the pretext of

marriage. Victim has also corroborated her version mentioned in the

FIR in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during

investigation. As stated above, the victim is yet to depose in the court.

In view of the above facts appearing on record and also keeping in

mind the gravity of offence, no grounds for bail are made out at this

stage. The bail application along with the other application is,

therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.

BRIJESH SETHI, J MARCH 18, 2020 (AK)