Delhi District Court
State vs . Rahul @ Mayank on 26 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF DR. T. R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT), EAST, NORTH EAST &
SHAHDARA DISTRICTS, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No.249/13
Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0223752013
Date of Argument :20.11.2013
Date of Order :26.11.2013
FIR No.:299/13
PS: Shakarpur
State Vs. Rahul @ Mayank
ORDER
This order will dispose of bail application dated 02.9.2013 u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing accused Rahul @ Mayank on regular bail.
2. I have already heard arguments of Ld. Addl P.P. for state and Ld. Defence Counsel on bail application and perused the file.
3. Bail has been sought on the grounds, inter alia, that the accused has been in J.C. since 21.4.2013; the prosecutrix has leveled false and contradictory allegations against the accused/applicant; police has fabricated the false evidence against the accused; there is considerable unexplained delay; the prosecutrix has distorted the material facts; there is no other case pending against the accused except one vide FIR No. 257/12; no useful purpose would be served in keeping the SC No. 249/13 State vs. Rahul @ Mayank Page No. 1/5 accused in jail with hardened criminals; and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions of the bail. It has been prayed that accused may be released on regular bail.
4. Bail has been opposed by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the state on the ground that there are serious allegations against the accused for commission of rape, extortion, criminal intimidation and outraging of modesty, etc.
5. During the course of arguments Ld. Defence Counsel relied on a case Anil Kumar Malik Vs. Delhi Administration, 51 (1993) DLT 77, wherein bail was granted to the accused as there was substantial delay of about 5 months is lodging of complaint.
6. During the course of arguments Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case Rohit Chauhan, (Order of DHC dated 22.5.13 in Bail App. No. 311/2013) , wherein High Court of Delhi granted bail to the accused keeping in view that prosecutrix was major and consenting party and she was in physical relationship with accused for about Two and half years.
7. During the course of arguments Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case Virender Singh vs. State (Delhi), 2010 (2) JCC 1350, wherein conviction of accused was set aside as it was found that there was sex apparently with the consent of the prosecutrix.
8. During the course of arguments Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently referred to call details record of mobile SC No. 249/13 State vs. Rahul @ Mayank Page No. 2/5 phone of prosecutrix and accused and emphasised on the point that prosecutrix had been making repeated calls to the accused prior on and after the alleged occurrence for a considerable long time and these calls apparently show that the prosecutrix was interested in the accused and no such incident as alleged by the prosecutrix had taken place.
9. On perusal of file and particularly statement of the prosecutrix recorded by Ld. M.M. u/s 164 Cr.P.C. I find that she, inter alia, stated that she and accused were in conversation for a considerable long time. Once the accused called her on 15.4.2013 and she took her to Estinn guest house where she was beaten, threatened and terrorized. It was told to her that there was nobody to hear her and that he would tear off her clothes and then disclosed all the incident to her father. By making a telephone call he asked his uncle (chacha) to come. She was scared thinking that so many person would come and misbehave with her. In that state of her mental status accused Rahul committed sex with her five times and also prepared video and threatened her to put the video on net if she tells the incident to others. Later on he was taken to hukka bar type restaurant and the accused threatened her that he would commit suicide and make her responsible by mentioning her name in the suicide note. He also warned her to make him telephone calls after every two hours.
10. On perusal of file I find that this case was received SC No. 249/13 State vs. Rahul @ Mayank Page No. 3/5 on 26.8.2013. Thereafter Ld. Defence Counsel had taken various adjournment to address arguments on charge on application u/s 91 Cr.P.C. was also filed and that was disposed of vide order dated 28.9.2013. Finally the Ld. Defence Counsel addressed arguments on bail application as well as charge on 20.11.2013. The statement of the prosecutrix has not been recorded so far. In the statement of prosecutrix there is explanation as to why she had been making telephone calls to the accused various time.
11. My attention also goes to a case Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat, (SC) 2008 A.I.R. (SC) 1134: 2008 Cri.L.J. 1618, wherein the Apex Court observed:
"25. This Court in Amarmani Tripathi's case (supra) had held that while considering the application for bail, what is required to be looked is, (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
12. Keeping in view the principles of law laid down in the case Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat (supra), serious allegations against the accused and further that case is at the initial stage and release of accused on bail may influence the prosecution evidence, I am of the view that it would not be just, fair and appropriate to release the accused Rahul @ SC No. 249/13 State vs. Rahul @ Mayank Page No. 4/5 Mayank on bail at this stage. Therefore, bail application of accused is dismissed.
Announced in the Open Court on th 26th November, 2013 (DR. T. R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No. 249/13 State vs. Rahul @ Mayank Page No. 5/5