Delhi High Court
Krishan vs State on 15 November, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 26.10.2021
% Pronounced on : 15.11.2021
+ BAIL APPLN. 3316/2021
KRISHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Alok, Mr. Siddharth Narang, Ms.
Smriti Walia and Ms. Aanchal
Budhraja, Advs.
versus
STATE .... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, APP for the
State with SI Madhavi.
Mr. Sohan Lal, Adv. for the victim
Victim in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.
644/2021 under Section 376 IPC registered at P.S. Burari.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 02.08.2021, the
present FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of victim
wherein she alleged that she interacted with the petitioner through
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:17.11.2021
12:08:49
Facebook and thereafter both of them became friends. They both
started talking with each other on phone. During conversation victim
disclosed her job requirement to the petitioner, on which petitioner
assured to get her meeting scheduled with some of his known. On
11.07.2021, petitioner asked victim to meet her at Burari. Petitioner
sent his current location and asked the victim to come at Burari More.
When victim reached there, petitioner told that meeting is not possible
at roadside and he took room in the OYO Rooms/Guest House at
Burari More. Victim went inside the room with petitioner. Thereafter,
petitioner made sexual relations with the victim against her will and he
ran away from there.
3. Victim made PCR call. She reached at PS Burari and told that
petitioner would meet her on 16.07.2021 and she did not want legal
action at that time. When petitioner did not meet her on 16.07.2021,
victim gave her statement on which the present case was registered.
4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the
State, assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant and also perused
the Status Report filed by the State.
5. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present
case. He further submitted that the present case is motivated. He
further submitted that there is a delay of 21 days in the registration of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:17.11.2021
12:08:49
the FIR which is unexplained. He further submitted that the victim is a
mature girl aged around 21 years and on the other hand, the petitioner
is only 18 years old student and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. He further submitted that it is highly improbable that an
18 years old student who is not even a resident of Delhi would promise
to offer job to a 21 years old Delhi based girl.
6. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that
the allegation made by the victim that petitioner made sexual relations
with her against her will does not seem to be probable because victim
did not shout or call for help at the time of commission of offence,
despite the incident taking place in a public place. He further
submitted that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, so the
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. He further
submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents. It is further
submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that there were
exchange of messages between the victim and the petitioner and phone
calls were also made between them even after the date of the alleged
incident, which shows that they were having cordial relations and only
for the reasons best known to the victim she has falsely implicated the
petitioner.
7. He further submitted that victim had not undergone any medical
examination on the date of the incident i.e. 11.07.2021 and the medical
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:17.11.2021
12:08:49
examination of the victim was conducted on 02.08.2021 and there is
no reasonable explanation by the victim for this delay. He further
submitted that the petitioner has deep roots in the society and there are
no chances of him fleeing form justice. He further submitted that no
inducement of promise of job was ever given by the petitioner to the
victim and the said allegation is absolutely false.
8. On the other hand, while opposing the bail application, Ld. APP
for the State has argued on the lines of the Status Report filed by the
State. It is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State, assisted by the Ld.
counsel for the complainant that the statement of the victim U/s 164
Cr.P.C was recorded on 03.08.2021, in which she corroborated the
facts mentioned in the FIR. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that
during investigation victim has provided screenshots of WhatsApp chat
with the brother-in-law and sister of petitioner and in the chat it can be
seen that Rajan who is the brother-in-law of petitioner and Suman who
is the sister of the petitioner tried to contact the victim. He further
submitted that both the said persons were examined in this regard and
they admitted that they tried to contact the victim.
9. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the petitioner is
absconding and NBW against the petitioner were issued on 07.09.2021.
He further submitted that the alleged offence is heinous in nature and
the allegations made against the petitioner are very grave and serious in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:17.11.2021
12:08:49
nature. He further submitted that the case is at its initial stage of
investigation and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for
the investigation purposes and in case the anticipatory bail is granted to
the petitioner, he may influence the victim.
10. In the instant case, no doubt, there is a delay of 21 days in
recording of the FIR but what would be the fate of the same will be
seen during the course of trial as the delay in recording the FIR in such
type cases is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution.
11. As per the Status Report, the victim went to meet the petitioner
on 11.07.2021 which is the date on which as per the allegations made
by the victim, petitioner made sexual relations with her against her will
in OYO Rooms/Guest House. It has also come in the status report that
on the same date, the victim made PCR call and also went to police
station and in the police station she told that petitioner would meet her
on 16.07.2021, so she did not want legal action at that time and it is
only when the petitioner did not met her on 16.07.2021, victim made
her statement on the basis of which the present case was registered. It
is not understood as to what stopped the victim from lodging the
complaint against the petitioner on the same date and as to why instead
of making a complaint against the petitioner, she chose to meet him on
16.07.2021.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:17.11.2021
12:08:49
12. One also cannot lose sight of the fact that admittedly, the incident
took place in a room which is a room of OYO Rooms/Guest House at
Burari More which is a public place but very strangely, the victim did
not make any hue or cry at the time when as alleged by her, the
petitioner made sexual relations with her against her will and ran away
from there. No doubt, victim made a PCR call and also went to police
station but there also, she failed to lodge any complaint against the
petitioner.
13. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the petitioner
has drawn the attention of the court to the WhatsApp chat and the
phone calls which were made between the victim and the petitioner to
show that even after the date of incident the victim was chatting
happily with the petitioner and also talking with him on phone. As far
as this contention of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the
veracity of these chats and phone calls can only be tested during the
course of trial and at this stage, the detailed analysis of the same cannot
be done, though these chats shows that the relation were not bad even
after the alleged incident.
14. Ld. APP alongwith counsel for the complainant has vehemently
argued that the allegations against the petitioner are very grave and
serious in nature but the severity of the allegations is not the only
consideration which should result in denial or the grant of bail to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:17.11.2021
12:08:49
petitioner. The totality of the circumstances deserves to be seen before
a person is granted or denied the anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court
in case titled Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of
Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 has laid down that the Court should
be loath to reject the grant of anticipatory bail in as much as it impinges
on the personal liberty of a person. Meaning thereby, unless and until
there is an imminent and a great imperative to have a custodial
interrogation of an accused, the anticipatory bail does not deserve to be
denied.
15. It has also been argued by the Ld. APP that the petitioner is
absconding and NBWs have already been issued against him, so he is
not entitled to anticipatory bail. I do not agree with this contention of
the Ld. APP that merely because NBWs have been issued against the
petitioner, this should be a sufficient ground for denying the grant of
anticipatory bail if it is otherwise made out. Every reasonable person
who has approached the Court for grant of anticipatory bail will keep
away from the investigation for sometime so that his bail application
does not become infructuous.
16. As far as the allegations of the victim that brother-in-law and
sister of the petitioner tried to contact her and the contention of the Ld.
APP that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may influence the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:17.11.2021
12:08:49
victim, this aspect of the mater can be taken care of by putting a
stringent condition on the petitioner.
17. There is nothing on record to suggest that there are any
allegations of tampering with the evidence or threatening to the
witnesses or victim by the petitioner and as far as the allegations made
by the victim are concerned, those can be proved by the victim by
entering into the witness box and for that purpose custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not required.
18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am
inclined to admit the petitioner to anticipatory bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned, subject to the
following conditions:
(i) That the petitioner shall not leave the country without the
permission of the Trial Court;
(ii) He shall not tamper with the evidence;
(iii) The petitioner or any of his relative shall not threaten the
victim/complainant and any of the witnesses of this case.
19. It is made clear that in case these conditions are violated, the
complainant or the prosecutor shall be free to move an appropriate
application for revocation of the grant of bail to the present petitioner.
20. Subject to the aforesaid conditions, the petition is allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:17.11.2021
12:08:49
21. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of
any opinion on the merits of this case.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
NOVEMBER 15, 2021
Sumant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:17.11.2021
12:08:49
