Delhi High Court - Orders
Rahul Tanwar vs State Of Delhi on 14 January, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3458/2020
RAHUL TANWAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Kedar Yadav, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Amit Gupta, APP for State with
SI Navin, PS I.P. Estate.
Mr.Devinder Hora, Advocate for the
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 14.01.2021 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
1. By this petition, petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.90/2019 under Sections 376D/328/354D/506/34 IPC registered at PS I.P.Estate, Delhi.
2. The petitioner is the elder brother of the main accused Raj Kumar. Even though in the FIR in question only allegation against the petitioner is that when the prosecutrix wanted to part from the main accused Raj Kumar, the petitioner along with other co-accused threatened her and also stated that they would throw acid on her and there is no allegation that the petitioner committed rape, in her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix stated that she was shown the video by Raj Kumar wherein she found that even the present petitioner was committing rape on her.
3. During the course of investigation attempts have been made to open Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3458/2020 Page 1 ofSigned Digitally 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:15.01.2021 11:58:01 the mobile phone of the accused Raj Kumar however, it could not be opened. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 14th December, 2020 directing conclusion of the examination and cross-examination of the complainant immediately, on 11th January, 2021 the next date before the learned Trial Court, it was noted that during the examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix the mobile phone of the accused was produced in a sealed pullanda and shown to the witness who correctly identified it. According to the prosecutrix the accused had taken nude photographs and made videos of the prosecutrix in his mobile phone, that is, I-Phone 10 Apple and the same was sent to the FSL for expert opinion but the data could not be retrieved as the mobile phone of the accused was having password code. Though Raj Kumar provided the password and the App lock passcode however, even applying the password and the passcode the mobile phone could not be made operational and the data could not be retrieved.
4. On 11th January, 2021 learned counsel for the accused stated before the Court that he had some knowledge as to how Apple I-Phone is opened and had provided some procedure to the Investigating Officer to supply the same to the FSL to retrieve the data however, according to the Investigating Officer, the Apple I-Phone could not be still opened and the data retrieved from the same. The next date fixed before the learned Trial Court is 27 th January, 2021.
5. Since the delay in the trial is on account of accused Raj Kumar not providing the password and the passcode, at this stage when the prosecutrix's examination-in-chief and cross-examination is yet to be conducted, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3458/2020 Page 2 ofSigned Digitally 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:15.01.2021 11:58:01 file a fresh bail application after the prosecutrix is examined.
7. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 14, 2021 'vn' Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3458/2020 Page 3 ofSigned Digitally 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:15.01.2021 11:58:01