Delhi High Court
Akshay Rawat vs The State,Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 22 March, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22nd MARCH, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ BAIL APPLN. 1112/2021 & CRL.M.A. 9865/2021
AKSHAY RAWAT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Arpit Bhalla, Mr. Devashish
Bhadauria, Mr. Akash Bhadana, Ms.
Ayushi Sharma, Mr. Aditya Kumar
and Mr. Vishal Chechi, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE, GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the
State with SI Usha Yadav, PS
Malviya Nagar.
Mr. Babanjeet Singh, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. Petitioner seeks bail in FIR No. 367/2020 registered at PS Malviya
Nagar for offences under Sections 376, 323 and 506 IPC. Petitioner was
arrested on 1.9.2020.
2. The facts, in brief, leading upto the present petition are as follows-
i. A written complaint was made to the S.H.O. PS Malviya Nagar
on 1.9.2020 that the complainant met the Petitioner on Snapchat
and he had introduced himself as Aarav Chaudhary working as a
pilot in Indigo Airlines and they started talking. The Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
asked her to meet him for dinner, picked her up from Krishna
Mandir Khirki Extension and took her to Murthal for dinner. It
is stated that on the way to Murthal, the petitioner said that his
car was punctured and stopped the car on the highway and told
her that until the tire was replaced, they could eat at Haldirams,
to which the complainant became uncomfortable and told him
she wanted to go home.
ii. It is stated that the behavior of the Petitioner changed at this
juncture, he threatened her and took her to his house at BPTP
Park Floor 1, House No. 001 Block G Faridabad Sector 77 and
forced her to drink alcohol due to which she vomited. It is stated
that the petitioner took her phone away, abused and beat her,
and raped her. It is stated that Petitioner took explicit videos of
her and took a knife and wrote the initial alphabet of his name
on her body and rubbed salt in it. It is stated that the Petitioner
threatened to kill her.
iii. It is stated that the next morning Abhishek, the brother of the
Petitioner, came to the flat. On reaching, there was an
altercation between the Petitioner and his brother Abhishek.
Abhishek booked a cab for the complainant to leave. It is stated
that before she left, the Petitioner threatened her with dire
consequences of making her videos viral and told her to keep
quiet about what happened. It is stated that when the
complainant said she will complain to the police, the Petitioner
allegedly said that she can do anything as the MLA of the area is
known to him and the Police cannot do anything. It was stated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
that the complainant did not know how to write a complaint and
made her friend write the complaint for her. Based on this
information, FIR No. 367/2020 was registered.
iv. The MLC of the complainant was conducted vide MLC No.
6465/2020 at AIIMS on 31.8.2020.
v. The statement under Section 164 CrPC of the complainant was
recorded by the Ld. MM, Saket District Court on 1.9.2020.
Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on
2.9.2020 wherein she confirmed the averments in the FIR.
vi. Investigation was done by the Police. The CDR of the Petitioner
and the complainant was summoned from the nodal officers to
ascertain their locations on the date of the incident. It was seen
that the Petitioner and complainant were talking since 27.8.2020
and their locations were of the same place on 30.8.2020. The
ownership details of the Honda City car bearing registration
number DL-3C-BA-3718, in which the Petitioner allegedly took
the complainant to Murthal, was found to be registered in the
name of one Sonia Soin, r/o Kailash Hills, New Delhi which had
been transferred to Tarun Bajaj r/o Uttam Nagar and from him
transferred to Abhishek Rawat, i.e., brother of the Petitioner.
The statement of the OLA cab driver who transported the
complainant from the Petitioner's house in Faridabad to
Malviya Nagar after one day of the incident, on 31.8.2020, was
recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
vii. Abhishek Rawat, brother of the Petitioner, filed a complaint
against the complainant on 12.02.2021 before S.H.O. Tigaon
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
Police Station and on 13.2.2021 to the Commissioner of Police.
In the complaints, it is stated that on 31.8.2020 when he reached
his rented apartment i.e. House No.1 First Floor, Block F, BPTP
Park, Sector 77 Faridabad, he saw his brother the Petitioner with
a girl sitting in bed, eating an omelet and when he did not get a
satisfactory answer about who the girl was, he slapped the
petitioner and warned the girl to leave the place or he would call
the police. The girl started crying and said she belonged to a
middle class family. It is stated that she did not have enough
charge in her mobile and he booked a cab for her. After she left,
the Petitioner told him that he met the girl on Tinder and began
talking to each other. It was stated that on 31.8.2020, one SI
Narender and two constables came to their house and inquired
about Abhishek and took both of them to Malviya Nagar Police
Station where they were informed that a case of rape was filed
against the Petitioner by the girl who was at their house a day
prior. It is further stated that on 07.09.2020, two people who
claimed to be relatives of the girl came to his house and
demanded 20 lakh rupees within 10 days. On 18.09.2020, he
met the complainant near her house and his mother gave 3 lakh
rupees to her and she told them to quickly make an arrangement
for the balance 17 lakh if they wanted the Petitioner to come out
of jail. On 19.9.2020, the assistant of the girl gave a signed
declaration to the Petitioner's brother which stated that once
payment of 20 lakhs is made to her she would withdraw the case
and will help in getting the FIR against the Petitioner quashed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
since she had filed it in the heat of the moment and societal
pressure. Thereafter, the lawyers of both sides met at Saket
Court to draw up the quashing petition. It is stated that on
6.10.2020, he met the complainant and gave her 1 lakh rupees
cash, which she said was less and rest 16 lakhs be arranged
immediately. Further, it is stated that he mortgaged the family's
agricultural lands with the bank and got a loan of Rs. 9 lakh
against, the amount was not paid and there was no contact
between the Petitioner's family and the complainant till
07.01.2021 when they reached her house and apologized to her,
telling her they will make good of remainder 16 lakh rupees and
the complainant assured them she will cooperate in getting the
FIR quashed if they immediately paid off her loan of 2,60,000/-
which she had to clear in two months. She shared details of a
bank account in Axis Bank Saket in which the Petitioner's uncle
transferred the amount on 12.02.2021.
viii. The Petitioner's bail was rejected by the Ld. ADJ, District
Courts Saket vide order dated 16.3.2021.
ix. A cross FIR, bearing No. 187/2021 dated 16.9.2021 was lodged
at Tigaon, Faridabad for offences under Sections 384 and 389
IPC by the Petitioner against the complainant in which
allegations are pari materia with the complaints filed by the
brother of the Petitioner on 12.02.2021 and on 13.02.2021
before the Commissioner of Police. It was stated therein that the
Petitioner was a sepoy posted at Assam Panbari 25 Rajput
Regiment, in the Indian Army since 2017 and met her on Tinder
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
App in April 2020 and started talking to her and shared her
Snapchat with the Petitioner's ID in the name of- akkird6921.
She voluntarily shared her photos in her inner garments and
after the Petitioner returned to his home in July 2020 from
Assam, she insisted on meeting the Petitioner and forced him to
meet her or else she would commit suicide and name him in his
suicide note. It is stated on 26.8.2020, the complainant called
him on Whatsapp and told him to call her on normal call, the
Petitioner told her that he could not meet her and to stop giving
suicide threats to which she implored him to meet or else she
would take her life and blame him for it. On 30.8.2020, he
states, he picked her up from Malviya Nagar Krishna Mandir at
8pm in his Honda City (DL-3CB-A-3718), she carried a wine
bottle in her and started drinking as she sat in the car and asked
the Petitioner for 15000Rs., and he said that he had only
Rs.8000 and gave it to her. She told him that she could not be
seen in any public place as she had many acquaintances in Delhi
and the Petitioner agreed to take to his flat at- 001, First Floor,
Block F, BPTP Park, Sector 77 on the way to which, near
Badarpur Toll, the tire of the car got punctured.
x. It is further stated that he called his friend Vipul on his mobile
phone for help at 9:15pm, booked a cab for the complainant by
telling her that they would meet on another day. His friend and
the cab both arrived, and she refused to go in the cab stating that
she had taken money from him and would not go without
returning it. It is stated that at 11:30pm, after the tyre got
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
repaired, she came along with the Petitioner to his flat and
pressurized him to drink alcohol with him. The Petitioner had
three pegs and went to sleep while the complainant was in the
lobby talking to someone on the phone. It is stated that the next
morning, the complainant forced the Petitioner to have sex with
him and when the petitioner declined, she brought a knife from
the kitchen and told him that she would commit suicide using
the knife by writing his name on her body and carved her skin
with it, to which the complainant took away the knife and both
complainant and the Petitioner had consensual sex. It is stated
that the next morning he went out to bring eggs for her and
made omelet for them when the brother of the Petitioner,
Abhishek Rawat came to the house and enquired about the
complainant and why she was there with the Petitioner. He
slapped the Petitioner and asked the complainant that he would
call the police if she did not leave the house. The complainant
pleaded with him to not call the police and said she belonged to
a middle class family, her phone had no battery and she could
not book a cab. The Petitioner's brother booked a cab for the
complainant and she left from the house. It is stated that on the
next day, the police officials came to the house and took the
Petitioner and his brother were taken into custody, it was
informed that the complainant had filed a complaint of rape. It is
stated that the Petitioner was arrested on 31.8.2020 and kept in
custody till 28.05.2021 and was released on interim bail by this
Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
xi. It is stated by the Petitioner that after being released on interim
bail, it was apprised to him that on 07.09.2020, two persons
claiming to be related to the complainant came to Petitioner's
house and the complainant demanded 20 lakh rupees in 10 days.
The Petitioner's brother and mother arranged for 3 lakhs, and
gave it to one Sanjay @ Ajeet, relative of the complainant, who
after taking the same, asked him to arrange the remaining 17
lakhs. A few days after, on 19.9.2020 the assistant of the
complainant, one Lucky left a declaration with the brother
which stated that she had been paid 3 lakh rupees and had to
receive remaining 17 lakhs pursuant to which the complainant
would withdraw FIR No. 367/2020 at PS Malviya Nagar and the
Petitioner's lawyer and the complainant's lawyer met at Saket
Court and prepared the quashing petition wherein the
complainant committed to sign it. On 6.10.2020, the
complainant met Petitioner's brother and took 1 lakh cash which
was withdrawn from the ATM, and demanded to make
arrangements for balance payment of 16 Lakhs, else she would
not withdraw her case. It is stated that the Petitioner's family
mortgaged their agricultural lands with the bank and got a loan
of Rs. 9 lakh, the amount was not paid and there was no contact
between the Petitioner's family and the complainant till
07.01.2021 when they reached her house and apologized to her
telling her they will make good of remainder 16 lakh rupees and
the complainant assured them she will cooperate in getting the
FIR quashed if they immediately paid off her loan of 2,60,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
which she had to clear in two months, she shared details of a
bank account in Axis Bank Saket which the Petitioner's uncle
transferred on 12.02.2021.
3. Mr. Sunil Dalal, Ld. Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner submitted that the present case is one of honey trap and the
Petitioner has been falsely implicated in it. He submitted that the Petitioner is
a sepoy in the Indian Army posted in Assam and the complainant
approached him on Snapchat in April 2020 and when he returned to Delhi in
July, she forced him to meet and consensually established sexual relations
with him and on the next morning the brother of Petitioner came and saw
them at his house and booked a cab for the complainant. He submitted that
the complainant demanded 20 lakh rupees to get the case settled and the FIR
withdrawn. He draws the attention of the Court to a declaration signed by the
complainant which stated that an agreement to pay the complainant 20 lakhs
was arrived at between the parties and that the complainant has received 3
lakhs out of it on 18.9.2020.
4. He adverted to the account statements of the Petitioner's brother
where transactions were made into the complainant's bank account, he states
Rs.1 lakh was withdrawn on 6.10.2020 from an ATM and Rs.2,60,000/- was
transmitted by RTGS into the account of the complainant on 12.02.2021. He
submitted that the Petitioner's brother had filed two complaints with the
S.H.O. Tigaon Police Station and the Commissioner of Police respectively
stating what actually had transpired and the money that he transferred to the
complainant. He contended that a FIR at Tigaon Faridabad was registered by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
the Petitioner on 07.09.2021 when he was out on interim bail wherein he has
narrated in detail the sequence of events that transpired. He submits that the
friend of the petitioner had come to his rescue when the tire of his car had
burst and had seen the complainant who at the time was intoxicated and
refused to be dropped to her home.
5. He further submitted that the complainant at first refused to give her
sample signatures to the forensic laboratory to qualify the assertion that she
did not enter into any agreement with the Petitioner's brother to settle the
case and only after the order of this Court the signatures were sent to the
FSL. He submitted that the FSL report concluded that the signatures on the
declaration matched with the samples given by the complainant. He submits
that Chargesheet stands filed, the evidence is with the Police and there is no
chance of tampering with evidence. He submits that the Petitioner is a
member of the armed forces and has deep roots in society and has lost two
years of his life being in jail as a consequence of being entrapped in bogus
proceedings and, therefore, shall be enlarged on bail by this Court subject to
any condition imposed by this Court.
6. Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Ld. APP, submitted that a FIR of rape was
filed by the complainant on 30.8.2020 and her medical examination was
done at AIIMS and her clothes were submitted for RFSL examination, the
potency test of the Petitioner was done on 02.09.2020 & clothes were taken
for examination and it was opined that the DNA found on the clothes of the
complainant matched with the DNA samples of the Petitioner. She submitted
that after the Petitioner's brother' complaints, his statement was recorded
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
where he stated the complainant visited his house and proposed to settle the
matter and was paid 6 lakh rupees and on 12.02.2021, two lakhs were
transferred to the complainant.
7. Mr.Babanjit Singh, Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that
she is a nurse and is engaged in the healthcare industry, and that she was
contacted by the Petitioner on Snapchat through a false name Aarav who
represented himself as a pilot and believing that to be true, she agreed on his
insistence to go for a drive. He submitted that the petitioner forced her to
come to his house and raped her and injured her with a knife and threatened
her of dire consequences on reporting the incident to the Police. He
submitted that the declaration presumably signed by the Petitioner was not
signed by the Petitioner and is a sham document to cast aspersions on
complainant's character.
8. He submitted that when complainant's account was deposited with 2
lakh rupees, she lodged a query with the bank asking the origin of the said
money. He stated that the complainant has been a victim of a very brutal act,
and this was taken into account by the Trial Court while refusing to grant
bail to him. He submitted that if the petitioner is let out on bail, he will
pressurize the complainant. He further made submissions which were not
pertinent to the merits of the case.
9. Heard Mr. Sunil Dalal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Ms.
Meenakshi Dahiya Ld. APP for State, and Mr. Babanjit Singh, Ld. Counsel
for the complainant, and perused the material on record.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
10. The Status Report states that 2 lakh rupees were credited into the
account of the complainant from an unidentified source. On scrutiny of the
allegation, it was found that the money had been deposited by one Veer
Vikramaditya who at the request of his nephew, Abhishek, had deposited the
money into the account of the complainant.
11. The considerations for granting bail are well settled and they have
been reiterated from time to time by the Apex Court, which are (i) gravity of
the offence and its punishment in case of conviction; (ii) reasonable
apprehension of witnesses being tampered (iii) frivolousness of prosecution;
(iv) prima facie satisfaction of the evidence in support of the allegations.
(Refer Ram Govind Upadhayay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598).
12. The FIR in the case was instituted in August 2020 and the Petitioner
has been in jail since 01.09.2020. Investigation in the case is completed and
chargesheet has been filed. A reading of the facts cumulatively depict that
the Petitioner and complainant were known to each other through social
media. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he committed rape on the
complainant. The complainant lodged an FIR alleging rape whereafter the
complainant's associates demanded money from the Petitioner's family to
sweep the matter under the carpet. The Petitioner's brother filed his bank
statements wherein entries show that he withdrew 1 lakh rupees on
6.10.2020 from the ATM and this fact has been explicitly stated in the two
complaints given by him to SHO and Commissioner of Police as well as in
the FIR lodged by the Petitioner in Tigaon against the complainant for
extortion. Documents on record show that monies of 2 lakh rupees were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
deposited into the account of the complainant by the uncle of the Petitioner
at the behest of the petitioner's brother and has this has been confirmed in
the status report.
13. Despite the fact that it was stated in the Malviya Nagar Police Station
that a declaration has been given by the complainant that she has received 3
lakh rupees as compensation from the petitioner's brother and that she will
withdraw the FIR on receiving 17 lakh rupees as compensation, the Malviya
Nagar Police Station did not take any steps in this regard. It has also come
on record that a sum of Rs.2 lakh had been deposited by the nephew of the
petitioner into the account of the complainant.
14. When the learned counsel for the complainant was asked as to why the
declaration was given and how the amount was deposited in the account of
the complainant, other than making allegations against the erstwhile lawyer
of the complainant and stating that it is not difficult in the present day to find
out the account number of any person, no satisfactory answer was provided.
15. On 02.12.2021, it was informed to this Court that the original copy of
the declaration deed is with the Faridabad Police and it was seized vide
seizure memo dated 02.10.2021 and is a case property in FIR No. 187/2021
dated 06.09.2021 registered at Police Station Tigaon, Faridabad, Haryana for
offences under Section 384, 389, 120B IPC.
16. This Court directed the learned APP to find out whether the
declaration deed has been sent to the FSL or not, and what is the result of the
FSL. On 09.12.2021, this Court was informed by the learned APP that the
prosecutrix has not given specimen signatures and, therefore, the declaration
could not be sent to the FSL. This Court on 09.12.2021 directed the
prosecutrix to go to Police Station Tigaon, Faridabad to give her specimen
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
signatures. After great difficulty and lot of efforts, specimen signatures were
obtained and the declaration of the specimen signatures were sent to the FSL,
Bhondsi, Gurugram, Haryana. The FSL report has been filed along with the
Status Report dated 02.02.2022. The FSL report has opined that the
signatures in the declaration form are of the prosecutrix.
17. On the one hand, the petitioner is accused of offence of rape. On the
other hand, there is an FIR against the complainant for committing offence
of extortion, alleging that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in a case
of honey-trap. There is material on record to show that there is a declaration
duly signed by the complainant agreeing to settle the case at the sum of 20
lakh rupees. There is also material on record which shows that amounts have
been deposited in the accounts of the complainant. The question as to
whether rape was committed by the petitioner or not, or whether the
petitioner has been honey-trapped can be decided only during the course of
trial and this Court is refraining itself from commenting on the merits of the
case.
18. The petitioner works in the Indian Army and has roots in the society.
Chargesheet stands filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following
conditions:-
(i) The Petitioner shall furnish a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with
two sureties in the like amount, one of them being a relative of
the petitioner, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
(ii) Memo of parties indicate that the petitioner is the resident of
H.No. 21, Village Dhaihola, P.S. Tigaon, Faridabad, Haryana.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
He shall continue to reside at the same address till further
orders;
(iii) The petitioner is directed not to leave NCR of Delhi without the
prior permission of the Court;
(iv) The Petitioner shall give his phone numbers to the I.O. and shall
keep them operational at all times;
(v) The petitioner is directed to drop a pin on the Google Maps so
as to ensure his location is available to the I.O. at all times;
(vi) The petitioner is directed to surrender his passport before the
Trial Court;
(vii) The Petitioner shall not contact the complainant or her relatives,
directly or indirectly and shall not come within 5 kms. radius of
her residence;
(viii) The Petitioner shall report to the I.O. through video
conferencing once every two weeks since the complainant
resides near Malviya Nagar Police Station;
(ix) The Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence
witnesses, directly or indirectly;
(x) In case the petitioner is directed to join back his service, the
petitioner is at liberty to approach for modification of the orders
of the Court;
(xi) Contravention of any of these conditions, if established, would
result in the immediate cancellation of bail given by this Court.
19. The observations made in the present petition are only for grant of bail
and not on the merits of the case.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
20. With these observations, the bail application is disposed of along with
pending applications, if any.
21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
MARCH 22, 2022
hsk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:24.03.2022
14:27:02
