Delhi High Court - Orders
Usman Ali vs State Nct Of Delhi on 5 October, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2892/2021
USMAN ALI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. G.M.Farooqui, APP for the State
with SI Aarti Yadav, PS Karawal
Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 05.10.2021 The hearing has been conducted through Physical Mode.
BAIL APPLN. 2892/20211. Learned APP for the State submits that the written notice has been given to the complainant for listing of this matter, however none appears on behalf of the complainant.
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.269/2021 under Sections 376/354C/506 IPC registered at PS - Karawal Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner and the prosecutrix lived as husband and wife for years together and also performed the marriage, proof whereof has been placed as Annexure P3 with the present petition. The disputes arose when the petitioner performed the second marriage in June, 2021 which the petitioner could have done because of his religion. Statement of the landlord of the premises also notes that the Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 2892/2021 Page 1 ofSigned Digitally 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:05.10.2021 22:18:02 petitioner and prosecutrix were living as husband and wife, which is further fortified by the photographs of the parties showing the level of comfort between the petitioner and the prosecutrix.
4. Learned APP for the State has taken this Court through the FIR. He further states that the version of the prosecutrix that there was proof of marriage is correct as the so called nikahnama could not be verified. Further though the prosecutrix gave the complaint in the police station on 11th March, 2021, she gave in writing that she was not pursuing the same on 9th April, 2021 followed by a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was also kept pending. However, once the petitioner performed marriage in May, 2021 and cheated the complainant, she got the FIR registered.
5. The prosecutrix in the FIR has stated that she was doing the course at Shashtri Park, where she met the petitioner. The petitioner forced her for friendship and on his again and again forcing for the friendship, she accepted the same. Thereafter, the petitioner stated to the prosecutrix that he loved her and wanted to marry her. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner continued sexually exploiting her on the pretext of marriage on multiple occasions and made her obscene videos and photos. The victim continued asking the petitioner to perform marriage, however no marriage was performed and a false Nikahnama was prepared and the petitioner on the threat that he would viral her video continued sexually exploiting the complainant. Statement of the complainant was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she reiterated the statements made before the police.
6. Undoubtedly, though the prosecutrix initially gave the complaint on 11th March, 2021, however thereafter she gave in writing on 9th April, 2021 that she was not pursuing the complaint followed by filing a petition under Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 2892/2021 Page 2 ofSigned Digitally 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:05.10.2021 22:18:02 Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 18th April, 2021, which also initially she did not pursue but after the petitioner performed the marriage in May, 2021, the prosecutrix pursued the remedy and got lodged the FIR in question.
7. As per the status report, during the course of investigation, so called Nikahnama, relied upon by the petitioner, was got translated in Hindi and the signatures and address of the Qazi, witnesses and the Advocates were found incomplete and hence, veracity of the Nikahnama could not be established. Further, there is no conversion certificate and even if the petitioner and the prosecutrix were living together as husband and wife as stated by the prosecutrix, the same was on the assurance that the petitioner would marry her. Charge-sheet has since been filed before the learned Trial Court and the prosecutrix is yet to be examined.
8. The allegations against the petitioner are also of transmitting the obscene photographs/ video of prosecutrix which were sent by WhatsApp to her for which the phone of the prosecutrix has been seized and sent to the FSL.
9. Considering that the Nikahnama is an unauthentic document for the reason that there is no conversion of the prosecutrix and the veracity of the same could not be established and the prosecutrix is yet to be examined before the learned Trial Court, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.
10. Petition is dismissed.
11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
OCTOBER 05, 2021/PB Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 2892/2021 Page 3 ofSigned Digitally 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:05.10.2021 22:18:02