Delhi High Court
Sanjay vs State Govt. Of Nct Delhi & Anr. on 12 February, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 08.02.2021
% Pronounced on : 12.02.2021
+ BAIL APPLN. 3128/2020 & Crl. M.A. 15315/2020
SANJAY
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sahil Mongia, Advocate.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State
with SI Sapna, P.S. Ranhola.
Mr. Anil Devlal, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. By way of this order, I shall dispose of the present bail application
filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of
the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 656/2020 registered
U/s 376/506 IPC at Police station Ranhola, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, the allegations against the petitioner as per the
complaint of the victim/complaint are that she met one Rajiv more than 6
years ago when she alongwith her husband mortgaged property bearing No.
A-154 Sainik Enclave Gali No. 4 for a total amount of Rs. 4 lakh.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:12.02.2021
16:09
According to the complainant, she met one Sanjeev in the office of Rajeev.
Later on 29 September 2016, she received a call from Sanjay (present
petitioner) who asked her to meet him one time by saying he had taken the
documents of her property from Sanjeev. She went to meet Sanjay, who
gave her a glass of cold drink and after drinking the same she became
unconscious. When she regained consciousness after about 2 hours,
petitioner showed her nude photos and videos. Then petitioner blackmailed
her to have physical relations with him. After that petitioner called her to
his home and forced her to make physical relations with him by threatening
her and showing her nude photos and videos. According to the complainant,
he continued this till May, 2019. When the complainant / victim demanded
her property papers, petitioner replied that the papers are now with one
Satish who is the financer and now she would have to make him happy, only
then she will get the papers. When the complainant/victim refused the same
stating that she would make a complaint against the petitioner to the police
then, petitioner threatened her to kill. According to the complainant/victim
last time petitioner had made physical relation with her on 6 December
2019. It is further alleged by the victim/complainant that she told petitioner
that he has ruined her life and asked him to keep her but the petitioner was
not ready to keep her with him. On the basis of above allegations made by
the complainant/victim, the present case was registered.
3. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State,
Ld. counel for the victim/complainant and also perused the status report
filed by the state.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:12.02.2021
16:09
4. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
is in J.C. since 23.06.2020. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was a married woman when she first met the
petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated and it was a consensual relationship which is evident from the
fact that respondent No. 2 has got the name of the petitioner permanently
tattooed on her forearm which shows her love towards the petitioner. He
further submitted that respondent No. 2 had sent photograph of the tattoo to
the petitioner via email on two occasions dated 13.12.2019 and 22.01.2020.
He further submitted that respondent No. 2 has clicked selfies with the
petitioner, exchanged garlands with him, attended festivities and celebrated
functions which is evident from the photographs filed on record. He further
submitted that the respondent No. 2 has even sent friend request to the
petitioner on face book. He further submitted that the respondent No. 2 was
in love with the petitioner and when she failed to convince the petitioner to
maintain ties then she got the present case registered. He further submitted
that there is a delay of about 7 months in the registration of the FIR. He
further submitted that the house in which the prosecutrix claimed to have
been kept by the petitioner was in fact let out to the prosecutrix. He further
submitted that during this long period of their association of around 4 years,
she never made complaint to her husband.
5. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued on the lines of
the status report.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:12.02.2021
16:09
6. In the present case, according to the prosecutrix she met the petitioner
for the first time on 29.09.2016. At that time she was married to one
Mahesh and she had gone with him to mortgage her property papers.
According to the prosecutrix between 29 September, 2016 till May 2019 the
petitioner kept on making physical relations with her by showing her nude
photographs and again he made physical relations with her on 6 December,
2019. The prosecutrix kept quiet for 3 long years and did not make any
complaint against the petitioner and she even did not inform her husband
about the acts of the petitioner.
7. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecutrix
was in love with the petitioner. The prosecutrix in the instant case is a
married woman and she got engraved tattoo of the petitioner on her forearm
which according to her was forcefully engraved by the petitioner when she
was in captivity in his house from 25.01.2020 to 15.04.2020. In my opinion,
making of tattoo is an art and special machine is required for the same.
Moreover, it is also not easy to make such a tattoo which is on the forearm
of the complainant if there is some resistance from the other side. It is not
everybody's job and it is also not the case of the prosecutrix that the
petitioner had anything to do with the tattoo business.
8. One of the allegations of the complainant/prosecutrix is that she was
confined in the house by the petitioner from 25.01.2020 to 15.04.2020,
however, the charge sheet revealed that the said house was taken on rent by
the complainant herself and the enquiries from one Naveen Sharma, landlord
revealed that the prosecutrix was residing alone in the said house. There are
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:12.02.2021
16:09
allegations from the side of the prosecurtrix in regard to the threats
extended to her but as per the status report no threats were extended by the
petitioner or on his behalf as alleged by the prosecutrix.
9. The status report reveals that at the time of arrest the mobile phone of
the petitioner was seized but no nude photographs were found. It is further
revealed in the status report that there were no recording of threats as alleged
by the prosecutrix. Therefore, in these circumstances her mobile was not
seized. There is a delay in registration of FIR, though delay is not fatal in
every case but at this stage, no opinion is being expressed on the aspect of
delay in lodging the FIR.
10. Without commenting on the merits, in the facts and circumstances of
this case, the application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail on
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of
the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below.
The bail application is disposed of accordingly. All pending applications
(if any) are also disposed of accordingly.
11. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any
opinion on the merits of this case.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2021
Sumant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:12.02.2021
16:09
