Delhi High Court
Rinku vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 9 July, 2025
$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09.07.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 2448/2025 & CRL.M.A. 19290/2025
RINKU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pratap Ranjan Sahani and Mr.
Monoranjan Padhi, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 344/2023 of
PS Nabi Karim for offences under Section 323/342/377/365/367/506/34 IPC
and 67A IT Act. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/
applicant is that along with his four accomplices (out of whom one has
absconded while others are in jail), he abducted the victim and after taking
off his clothes, beat him up; and thereafter they committed sodomy on the
victim and also inserted penis of one of the assailants forcibly in his mouth
while filming the entire assault. The video clicked by the accused persons
was circulated by them on the social media.
BAIL APPLN. 2448/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.09 17:48:37
+05'30'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:09.07.2025
18:16:55
2. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the
accused/applicant was not named in the first complaint sent by the victim to
the Chief Justice of India. It is further submitted that the victim in his
testimony before the trial court has not supported the prosecution case.
Lastly, it is argued that for "creation of defence", the accused/applicant has
to come out of jail, so he may be granted bail.
3. Learned APP accepts notice and strongly opposes the bail application
in view of the nature of allegations and one of the accused persons having
absconded.
4. As regards the victim having not supported the prosecution, the IO
has shown me the video clip of the crime. The said video clip, forming part
of the chargesheet, would be proved during the trial. But in view of the said
clip, it cannot be ruled out that the accused/applicant has pressurized or
otherwise won over the victim. Releasing such an accused on bail would not
be appropriate.
5. So far as the plea of "creation of defence" is concerned, the plea has
been recorded only to be rejected. For, this way every accused would have
to be released on bail irrespective of the gravity of crime and other
parameters on which the grant or denial of bail has to be tested.
BAIL APPLN. 2448/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.09 17:48:58
+05'30'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:09.07.2025
18:16:55
6. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find it a fit case to release the
accused/applicant on bail. The bail application is dismissed. Pending
application stands disposed of.
7. Of course, nothing observed herein shall be kept in mind by the trial
court at the time of the final decision.
GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.09
17:49:11 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
JULY 9, 2025/ry
BAIL APPLN. 2448/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages
