Delhi High Court - Orders
Ritu Gupta vs Govt. Of State (Nct Of Delhi) on 13 June, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1830/2022
RITU GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ujjwal Puri, Mr.Janam Dixit and
Mr.Mukesh, Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Dr.M.P. Singh, APP for State with SI
Preeti Chauhan, P.S.: Adarsh Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER
% 13.06.2022 CRL.M.A. 11973/2022 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 1830/20221. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.474/2022 under Sections 370/354-A/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State appears on advance notice served upon the State and accepts notice.
3. I intend to dispose of this application at the stage of notice itself since detailed arguments have been addressed both by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely accused of running a massage parlour illegally with the assistance of co-accused wherein the girls are being forced to have sexual relations with the clients. It is urged that no role was alleged to the petitioner in the initial Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:14.06.2022 18:19:26 FIR which was registered and the allegations were only made against one Paramjit Singh who is alleged to have touched the breast of the complainant and gave a lucrative offer of handsome salary to the victim. It is submitted that the petitioner subsequently came to know of the incident and had no role to play.
5. On the other hand, the application has been vehemently opposed by learned APP for the State. It is submitted that the present case was registered on 12.04.2022 on the basis of information recorded vide DD No. 87A. The statement of complainant was recorded in the presence of CWC Counsellor wherein she alleged that co-accused Paramjit Singh gave inducement to her to provide a handsome salary in view of sexual favours to be provided to the clients. Further, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the co-accused Paramjit Singh was communicating with the petitioner (i.e. the owner of the massage parlour) to show the girls to the clients on video calls. The said mobile phone is stated to have been taken in possession. The complainant is further stated to have supported her version in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
It is pointed out that one of the workers at the massage parlour, named „K‟ was examined, who stated that she was forced to make sexual relations with the clients by the co-accused Paramjit Singh as well as by the present applicant, who is the owner of the massage parlour.
6. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised. Considering the evidence on record, it appears that a racket of illegal sexual activities was carried on the pretext of massage parlour and young girls were induced to extend sexual favours. The same also duly stands supported by the statement of „K‟ recorded under Section 161 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:14.06.2022 18:19:26 Cr.P.C., which has been relied by the learned APP for the State.
Considering the grave nature of allegations, no grounds of anticipatory bail are made out.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
JUNE 13, 2022/ik Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:14.06.2022 18:19:26