BAIL APPLN. 2779/2022
VIVEK PANDEY vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ANR.
The current application was filed under Section 439 (Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in FIR No. 566/2022 on 24.08.2022, under Sections 376/509/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Palam Village. Bail application before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
|Punishment for rape.
|Punishment for criminal intimidation. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.
|Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
FACTS OF THE CASE
The FIR was registered on a complaint by the prosecutrix alleging that the applicant raped her on the pretext of marriage.
It is alleged that the applicant of this petition was in search of a job. He met the Prosecutrix during his visit to her office, situated at Chamber No. 5, Pusa Road, Rajendra Place, where she was working as a HR Manager. The two started meeting each other frequently and began a relationship between them. They also established physical relations with each other. The applicant promised to marry the prosecutrix and in this pretext established forceful physical relations with her. During this course, the prosecutrix got pregnant and was forced to take abortion pills by the applicant.
The applicant later refused to marry the prosecutrix and began relations with other women, thus leading to the registration of the FIR. The applicant was arrested on 24.08.2022.
The applicant had earlier filed a bail application no. 2312/2022 before the learned ASJ, Dwarka Court, New Delhi, but it was dismissed by order on 29.08.2022.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had been falsely implicated in the current case and admitted, the physical relationship for more than six months, prior to filing of the complaint.
The Counsel also submits that the place of incident has been alleged to be Hotel in Dwarka which was booked by the prosecutrix herself and the register maintained by the Hotel shows the checkout time at 08:15 p.m. But the allegation has been made that the prosecutrix was raped during the whole night.
In the current case the prosecutrix has refused any internal examination.
Learned Counsel for the prosecutrix states that the applicant promised to marry her and also introduced her to his friends and relatives as his wife and in this pretext established forceful physical relations with her.
The Counsel also submitted that the conduct of IO (Ms. Laxmi), in the case, is very dubious as she constantly favours the applicant and has not conducted extensive investigation and has also not revealed the WhatsApp chat between the prosecutrix and the applicant because of which the real truth could not be articulated.
The Counsel for the prosecutrix further submits that the prosecutrix is also getting life threats and the applicant has also threatened to throw acid at her. Therefore he contended that the prosecutrix has a threat to life if the applicant is released on bail.
The investigation was complete and the charge sheet has already been filed.
The statement of the prosecutrix was record by the learned Trial Court on 12.12.2022. She has admitted that she had gone to the hotel room on the date of incident, that is, 08.05.2022.
In the present case, it is admitted that the prosecutrix had known the applicant and was meeting the applicant on regular basis and that she accompanied the applicant to the hotel room on her own will. It is alleged that she, initially resisted having sexual intercourse but agreed when the applicant told her that he would marry after talking to his parents.
No evidence has been produced on record, at this stage, to corroborate the allegation of the prosecutrix getting pregnant and being was forced to abort the foetus.
The Court stated that, whether the consent of the prosecutrix was taken out of false promise to marry, cannot be established at the current stage and would be a matter of trial.
Nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the alleged acid threats of the applicant.
The Court observed that the applicant is in custody since 24.08.2022 and the trial is likely going to take a long period of time before it reaches a conclusion.
The Court did not dispute that the offence as alleged is heinous in nature. But it stated that it cannot be lose sight of the fact that the object of jail is not punitive but to secure the presence of the accused during the trial.
The Court stated that the aspect of physical relation was consensual or was on pretext of marriage which was false since the very inception between the prosecutrix and the applicant would be established after the trial.
The Court stated that it was satisfied that no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further incarceration.
The applicant was, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/ Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:
- The applicant shall upon his release provide his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times
- The applicant shall not take unwarranted adjournment and must attend the Trial Court proceedings on every date
- The applicant will not leave the city without informing the concerned IO / SHO
- The applicant shall not in any manner contact the complainant or the witnesses and must not in any way tamper with any evidence.
- The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the learned Trial Court
- The applicant during the period on bail shall not commit any offence whatsoever and in the event of there being any FIR/ DD Entry/Complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek cancellation of bail of the applicant
The Court concluded by mentioning that the observation made through the current order are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and must not influence the outcome of the trial and must not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.