Delhi High Court
Nirmal Vaid vs State Nct Of Delhi on 7 January, 2013
Author: Kailash Gambhir
Bench: Kailash Gambhir
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1760/2012
NIRMAL VAID ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. N. Hariharan, Mr. Utkarash and
Mr. Dharmender, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the
State.
Complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
ORDER
% 07.01.2013 Crl.M.A. No. 19679/2012 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 1760/2012 By this petition moved under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail.
As per the allegations leveled by the prosecutrix in the FIR the present petitioner happens to be the father of one of the prosecutrix's student, who used to visit her studio almost daily to pick his son from the dance class. It is further alleged that the petitioner representing Page 1 of 6 himself to be an event Manager, Film & TV show producer and Media coordinator assured the prosecutrix that he will give her a break in his film/serial as a choreographer and thereafter she started believing him. The complainant has further alleged that she started hanging out with the petitioner and in due course of time the petitioner got to know that the complainant was having a strained relationship with her husband and also her in-laws. It is further alleged that having come to know about the aforesaid fact, the petitioner started convincing her that he needs emotional support from her as his wife does not love him. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner represented that he would seek divorce from his wife and similarly she also take divorce from her husband and thereafter they would marry each other. It is also the case of the complainant that thereafter she started believing in him blindly and on 10th June, 2009 at around 9.30 to 10.00 p.m., while she was preparing to leave from her dance studio for her home, the petitioner entered the studio with a soft drink bottle and offered it to her. It is alleged in the FIR that after consuming the drink she became unconscious. It is the case of the prosecturix that in the said condition the petitioner raped her forcibly without her consent and it is only when she re-gained her consciousness at about 3.00 a.m. and when she started lamenting bitterly, the petitioner started consoling her and repeated his promise Page 2 of 6 that he will marry her and believing in such assurance given by him, the prosecutrix did not report the said incident to the police. It is also the case of the prosecutrix that he called her at 51, Jagriti Enclave Extn. and repeated the same act on false promise of marriage on 17 th August, 2010 and this act was again repeated on 10 th October, 2010. It is also the case of the prosecutrix that on 7th March, 2010 the petitioner took her with him for his upcoming movie to be shot in Dehradun where on 7th May, 2012 he forced her to make sexual relationship with him against her will with false promise of marriage. Then on 13th July, 2012 to 15th July, 2012 the petitioner again took her to Rajasthan for the event of shoot of a documentary on Swami Narayan Dass and again committed rape on her without her consent. In September, 2012 when the complainant asked him to take her to his house then he started avoiding her and making false pretentions so as to linger on the matter.
It is in this background that the complainant has alleged that her patience and tolerance level had crossed all barriers and reported the matter to the police. The complainant has also alleged that there is threat to her life and limb and if anything happens to her and her family members, it would the petitioner and his acquaintances who would be held responsible.
Page 3 of 6
Addressing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. N. Hariharan, Advocate submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant in order to extract money from him. Counsel further submits that the petitioner as well as the complainant are married persons and both of them are having strained marital relationship with their respective spouses. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is about 54 years of age having a son of 21 years of age and daughter of 18 years of age and has clean antecedents. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has never extended any promise of marrying the prosecutrix and this is apparent from the fact that neither the petitioner nor the respondent has taken any steps to seek dissolution of their marriage from their existing spouse. Counsel also submits that the NBW issued against the petitioner has already been stayed by the learned Trial Court.
Present application has been strongly opposed by Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State. Mr. Sharma submits that there are very serious allegations leveled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner, who has been exploiting the complainant on the false promise of marrying her. This application has also been opposed by the complainant/prosecutrix, who is present in Court. She submits that she would not have permitted the petitioner to have sexual relationship Page 4 of 6 with her without the said promise of marriage being extended by the petitioner.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State and the prosecutrix present in Court.
Rape is one of the most barbaric and heinous crimes not only against the victim of the rape but also against the society as a whole. The cases of rape, gang rape and digital rape are on increase and perpetrators of this inhuman and brutal crime are worse than even the beasts and deserve to be dealt with a heavy hand. The entire country is seriously debating this issue and there are proposals coming forth that death penalty should be the answer to deal with the accused involved in such heinous crime. Having said this, I am also constrained to observe here that no one should be allowed to trivialise the gravity of offence by misusing the same as a weapon for vengeance or vendetta.
The case in hand is a strange case where the complainant, who is a married lady having a daughter of 11years, has leveled serious allegations of the petitioner raping her time and again for the past three years. It is an undeniable fact that the complainant and also the petitioner are having strained relationship with their respective spouses and both of them have not taken any re-course to seek divorce from their respective spouses. With the provision envisaged under Section Page 5 of 6 90 of the IPC with respect to 'Consent', it is not expected of the complainant, who appears to be a well enlightened lady running a dance studio, to submit herself to have sexual relationship with the petitioner just on the alleged promise of marriage made by the petitioner that too not in Delhi alone but also at Jaipur and Dehradun where she had accompanied the petitioner.
Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, this court is of the view that the petitioner deserves grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing of his personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 15,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The petitioner shall also fully cooperate in investigation and will not create any hindrance or impediment during the course of investigation. The petitioner shall also not take any action to intimidate or cause any sort of harm to the complainant or her daughter.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J JANUARY 07, 2013 Page 6 of 6