Delhi High Court - Orders
Bani Singh vs State Nct Of Delhi on 14 September, 2021
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~20.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2677/2021
BANI SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State
with SI Sanjay Kumar, P.S. Narela
(Mob. No. 9711323424)
Mr. Pankaj Datt, Advocate for complainant along
with complainant in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)
ORDER
% 14.09.2021
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 264/2021 registered under Sections 323/341/452/376 IPC at Police Station Narela, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in custody since 20.06.2021. He submits that the incident in the present case is stated to have taken place on 29.05.2021 at Narela in Delhi, however, no complaint was filed by the complainant for the next 18 days. In fact, the complainant filed a complaint in district Bharatpur, on 17.06.2021. The said FIR was thereafter transferred to Police Station, Narela. He submits that the prosecutrix is a married woman of 23 years of age. He also submits that the statement of the prosecutrix got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 24.06.2021, wherein she has stated that she stayed with the applicant as per her own wish and during that time, she came close to him. She further stated that physical relations were established by her with the applicant out of her own consent. Learned counsel also submits that at the time of her medical examination, the prosecutrix refused internal examination.
3. Learned APP for the State, duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the bail application. It has been stated that the prosecutrix alongwith her husband was doing labour work under the applicant who is a contractor by profession. It is further stated that the prosecutrix has alleged that on the date of incident, at about 10 a.m. when there was no one at home, the applicant came to her house and committed rape upon her after tying her down. She has also alleged that the applicant had slapped her on the ear which led to bleeding.
4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the MLC of the prosecutrix placed on record alongwith the Status Report where no such injury on her ear has been traced.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances; the fact that the prosecutrix is a married woman of 23 years of age and what she stated in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/Duty M.M./concerned Court and also subject to the following further conditions :-
i) The applicant shall remain available on mobile number i.e., 9911859095, which he undertakes to keep operational at all times during the pendency of the trial;
ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly try to get in touch with the complainant or any other prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;
iii) The applicant shall regularly appear before the concerned Court during the pendency of the trial;
iv) In case of change of residential address/contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Investigating Officer as well as to the concerned Court.
6. The bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
7. A copy of this order be communicated electronically to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information.
8. A copy of this order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
9. Needless to state that nothing observed hereinabove shall amount to an expression on the merits of the case and shall not have a bearing on the trial of the case.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 na Click here to check corrigendum, if any