Delhi High Court
Tajinder Singh Rana vs State (Delhi Administration) on 14 November, 1985
Equivalent citations: 29(1986)DLT339
JUDGMENT G.R. Lathra, J.
(1) The present petition is for giant of bail to the present petitioner Tajinder Singh Raca. He is accused of commission of offences punishable under sections 354, 376, 384, 420, 506 and 509 Indian Penal Code Fir No. 660 of 1985 of police station defense Colony was registered on October 15, 1985 against the petitioner on the basis of a written complaint of Ms.Shirley George (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). That written report is addressed to Sho, defense Colony police station and was filed on October 15,1985 itself.
(2) Briefly speaking the report of the complainant was as follows. She was residing at International Polytechnic for Women in South Extension Part 1. A few months before the report, the started residing at E-7, South Extension, Part I, New Delhi. In the month of February 1985 she met the petitioner Tajinder Singh Rana. She and petitioner became friends. The petitioner offered her a job in his business known as Maharana Electronics situated in Wazirpur Industrial Complex, Delhi.
(3) The trouble started in the month of July 1985, when she was made dead drunk. When she was under intoxication, her clothes were stripped and she was made naked. Photographs of her naked body were taken and then she was subjected to rape. Thereafter, the petitioner started threatening her that if she reported the matter to any one, be would fully ruin her life. He also demanded that she should bring Us $ 2000 from her parents otherwise the naked photographs would be dispatched to her parents who were at that time at Kuwait. In the month of August 1985 she went to Kuwait. She requested her father to give her Us $ 2000 because she wanted to give it as a loan. She was given that amount and she advanced loan to the petitioner. She was demanding the money back from the petitioner but the petitioner did not return the same. On the other hand, the petitioner threatened her that she must bring more money from her parents otherwise her naked photographs would be sent to her parents. In this way the petitioner was blackmailing any trying to extort money.
(4) A box of her clothes including sarees and winter dresses was lying with the petitioner. The petitioner refused to return the same.
(5) The case of the petitioner, as disclosed in the petition, is that it was with the consent of each other that they were enjoying sex among themselves. It is also stated by him that the complainant is a drunkard and chain smoker and is used to have sex frequently. The petitioner also tells that the complainant left for Kuwait on 14th July 1985, that she stayed there till 24th August 1985 and that then she joined him at Switzerland on 25th August 1985 in accordance with he previous arrangement and then they lived together for for about 15 days at Switzerland as well as France.
(6) In support of the assertion of the prosecution, some photographs of the complainant have been shown to me. A number of them are half naked while two photographs are fully of naked body. Counsel for the petitioner also showed me some photographs which indicate that the complainant is fond of taking drinks and smoking. Counsel for the petitioner contended that in fact it is the way of life of the complainant to drink, smoke and enjoy sex, (7) I do not wish to give any opinion on the merits of the case because otherwise it is bound to prejudice in the trial either prosecution or defense of the petitioner. One thing very important to mention is that the complaint was lodged after about three months of the alleged rape.
(8) Having regard to all the circumstances and especially the fact that the trial is likely to take quite long, I am of the view that the petitioner should not be kept in jail and should be released on bail. However, we will have to attach some conditions while granting bail. Sodhi Teja Singh for the State expressed apprehensions that if the petitioner is released, he shall try to obstruct the complainant in appearing as a witness against him and, therefore, some suitable arrangement will have to be made that that does not happen. For ensuring that the petitioner docs not cause any obstruction to the complainant from appearing as a witness in the court and deposing against him, it is necessary to impose some restrictions on the movements of the petitioner.
(9) Under these circumstances I direct the release of the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30.000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The surety and the personal bonds must contain the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall try to meet the complainant Ms. Shirley George and shall not go to South Extension area, New Delhi. (ii) The petitioner shall maintain peace and be of good behavior during the period he remains on bail. (iii) He shall not leave India without permission of the Additional Sessions Judge who is to try the case and before commitment, the permission of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi should be sought.
(10) A copy of this order shall be sent to the Additional Sessions Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi for information. 11. Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 1271 of 1985 stands disposed of.