Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Bhupesh Luthra vs The State on 18 September, 2020

Author: Yogesh Khanna

Bench: Yogesh Khanna

                                $~17
                                *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                +    BAIL APPLN. 2555/2020
                                     BHUPESH LUTHRA                                     ..... Petitioner
                                                       Through : Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
                                                                   Mr.Pradeep      Rana,        Mr.Sumit
                                                                   Chaudhary and Mr.Tarun Gaur,
                                                                   Advocates
                                                       versus
                                     THE STATE                                        ..... Respondent
                                                       Through : Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State.
                                                                   Mr.Abhishek       Kaushik           and
                                                                   Mr.Kaushal Kaushik, Advocates for
                                                                   complainant.
                                     CORAM:
                                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
                                                       ORDER

% 18.09.2020

1. The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.

2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued this application for anticipatory bail stating interalia that frivolous allegations of outraging and molesting of his own daughter are leveled against the petitioner by his daughter at the instance of his estranged wife. It is submitted the allegations pertains to the period prior to December, 2019 and that thereafter on 21.04.2020 his estranged wife had sent the children, including the daughter to the parental house of the petitioner to stay with the petitioner and if he was doing such things with his own daughter, his wife ought not to have sent the daughter to him for stay. Further it is submitted that though the complaint of sexual harassment was filed on 29.07.2020 through his wife but she deliberately kept it pending till 12.08.2020 as she was trying to crack a settlement favoring her and in support thereof he has filed an unsigned BAIL APPLN. 2555/2020 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAPIL SHARMA Signing Date:18.09.2020 16:32 MoU which is annexed with an email dated 06.08.2020 sent by her lawyer to the petitioner and that her presence is approved at Singla Restaurant, Dwarka where she came along with her brother to settle the matter with the petitioner. Further some SMS(s) and audio recording of son of the petitioner are also annexed with the application for anticipatory bail.

3. The status report filed by the police also notes they have verified the MoU was sent by the counsel of his estranged wife to the petitioner but it could not be taken forward.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant however submitted the complainant was never a part of the deal and she never agreed for the settlement, though she had visited the said restaurant on a call. Even otherwise, it is stated the whatsapp messages as also the audio recordings are all motivated and answers were extracted from their son to suit the convenience of the petitioner. Heard.

5. The complaint is lodged qua sexual harassment to 11 year old daughter of the petitioner and admittedly she had given a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on dated 12.08.2020 supporting such allegations and the same cannot be ignored at this stage.

6. The said allegations made by the daughter of the petitioner are not been repeated herein and can be looked into in the record file. No doubt the learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued qua some settlement to be arrived at between the parents of the girl and also the acrimony existing between them but the statements of their daughter, at this stage, needs to be looked into independently of their acrimony or any deal between them and it cannot be ignored since she has even deposed under Section 164 Cr.P.C. I BAIL APPLN. 2555/2020 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAPIL SHARMA Signing Date:18.09.2020 16:32 see no reason to ignore such serious allegations simply on the ground of some whatsapp messages and a failed settlement between parents of the girl, who has come forward to depose against her father. Such allegations made by her if, are motivated or not, cannot be seen, at least, at this stage. Even otherwise, as per the prosecution, a process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated, hence there is no merit in the application and it is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of.

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2020 DU BAIL APPLN. 2555/2020 Page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAPIL SHARMA Signing Date:18.09.2020 16:32