Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajiv Kumar vs The State on 5 January, 2022
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3358/2021
RAJIV KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Vishal Soni and Mr.Gurmit Singh
Hans, Advocates.
Versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State.
Mr. Rahul Chauhan, Advocate for
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 05.01.2022 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
BAIL APPLN. 3358/20211. By this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.643/2020 under Sections 323/447/354/354A/354B/427/379/506/509/34 IPC registered at PS - Wazirabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the video footage which shows that the complainant herself tore her clothes and implicated the petitioners has been seized by the investigating officer. Similarly placed co- accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 6th April, 2021.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant also enters appearance and states that the complainant has already lodged a complaint alleging that the complainant is being threatened to withdraw the case filed by her.
4. The above noted FIR was registered after ten PCR calls were received Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3358/2021 Page 1 ofSigned Digitally 4 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:05.01.2022 21:13:16 on 5th December, 2020 at PS Wazirabad regarding property dispute in DD No.19-A and allegations of tearing of clothes were also made. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was got done and her statement recorded. In her statement, the prosecutrix alleged that she had purchased a plot of 162 Yards in Gali No.9, Milan Vihar in 2019 and thereafter, she started construction in 2019, but some persons, namely, Rajeev, Vijender and Chintu came to her plot and stopped the work by claiming that the property belonged to them. After that on 30th November, 2020, she again started work on her plot but in the night, Rajeev with the help of his associates illegally trespassed on her plot and consequently, FIR No.638/2020 was registered under Sections 447/379/506/34 IPC. It is alleged that on 5th December, 2020, when she came to the plot, she found that Rajeev, Vijender, Sunil, Gyanender were demolishing the construction work, that is, the walls and pillars etc and that Jatin, Hitin@ Kunnu alongwith some persons also came on the spot to help Rajeev and his associates. It is stated that when the prosecutrix tried to stop them, they abused her, touched her private parts and breast and physically assaulted her and also tried to disrobe her by tearing her clothes. On this statement of the prosecutrix, the above noted FIR i.e. FIR No.643/2020 was registered and investigation carried out.
5. During the course of investigation, a video footage has been seized by the Investigating Officer which shows that the allegations of the prosecutrix that the petitioner and the co-accused tore her clothes is not fortified as she is seen tearing her clothes herself. For this reason, this Court had earlier granted anticipatory bail to the two co-accused, namely, Hitin and Sunil Kumar.
6. As regards the allegations of the prosecutrix that she was being Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3358/2021 Page 2 ofSigned Digitally 4 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:05.01.2022 21:13:16 threatened to withdraw her case, a further status report has been filed by SHO, PS Wazirabad stating that the prosecutrix made a complaint on 27 th December, 2021 at PS Wazirabad alleging that the petitioner and his brothers Rinku and Sunil were threatening her to withdraw the cases got registered by her against them and for handing over the property in question to them, else her sons would be implicated in false cases.
7. On inquiry, it was found that one FIR has been registered at PS Nabi Karim against the sons of the prosecutrix being FIR No.182/2021 under Sections 376/506 IPC and the complaint at PS Wazirabad alleging threat was lodged by the prosecutrix only after the registration of FIR No.182/2021 at PS Nabi Karim. Further, FIR No.941/2021 under Sections 195A/34 IPC has already been registered at PS Wazirabad against the petitioner and his brothers.
8. Considering the fact that in the above noted FIR i.e. FIR No.643/2020, the allegations against the petitioners are essentially of trespass, physical assault and molestation and the allegations of molestation are prima facie falsified by the video footage collected during the course of investigation, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
9. It is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety bond of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO concerned, further subject to the conditions that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and in case of change of residential address and/ or mobile number of the petitioner, the same will be intimated to the Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3358/2021 Page 3 ofSigned Digitally 4 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:05.01.2022 21:13:16 Investigating Officer till the filing of the charge-sheet and thereafter, to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit.
10. Petition is disposed of.
11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 5, 2022 PB Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3358/2021 Page 4 ofSigned Digitally 4 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:05.01.2022 21:13:16