Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Praveen Kumar vs The State on 24 May, 2021

Author: Mukta Gupta

Bench: Mukta Gupta

                              $~11
                              *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI A T NEW DELHI
                              +      BAIL APPLN. 1593/2021

                                     PRAVEEN KUMAR                                     ..... Petitioner
                                             Represented by:        Mr. Sacchin Puri, Senior Advocate
                                                                    with Mr. Sumit Babbar, Advocate.
                                                       versus
                                     THE STATE                                        ..... Respondent
                                              Represented by:       Mr. Amit Gupta APP for the State
                                                                    with Insp. Sushil Kumar P.S. Mohan
                                                                    Garden.

                                     CORAM:
                                     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
                                                   ORDER

% 24.05.2021 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.

1. By this petition the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.44/2021, under Sections 376/377/313/354-B/506 IPC, registered at PS Mohan Garden.

2. The allegations of the prosecutrix in the FIR are that she met one Neeraj in April, 2018 who induced her to enter into physical relations on the pretext of marriage but later refused to marry, for which FIR No.691/2019 under Section 376 IPC was registered at PS Uttam Nagar, however, the parties entered into a settlement and the said FIR was quashed. According to the complainant, the same was a ploy of the accused persons to escape criminal prosecution as after the marriage Neeraj started visiting her and on 30th January, 2020 when she informed that she was in a family way, Neeraj became furious and forced her to terminate the pregnancy. The prosecutrix refused to terminate the same when Neeraj consumed liquor and made oral and unnatural sex with her without her consent.

3. It is further alleged that on 31st January, 2020 the petitioner visited the said house at Uttam Nagar and handed over a strip of tablet which was given to her by Neeraj forcefully in order to terminate her pregnancy and they forced her to handover ₹5,00,000/- to the petitioner Praveen after arranging the said funds.

4. The prosecutrix had made further allegations against Neeraj, however, the further allegations against the petitioner in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are that the petitioner came to her house in the uniform of Harayana police officer with his friend Somdas on 9th February, 2020. He hugged her forcefully, broke the strings of her salwar and raped her and on her resistance, they threatened her not to disclose about giving of tablets of termination of pregnancy and ran away. The FIR contains one more allegation of being badly treated and not letting inside the house by the sister-in-law at Jhajjar, Haryana.

5. On verification during the investigation opinion on the MLC of the prosecutrix regarding the termination of pregnancy was sought which revealed that the prosecutrix was UPT negative and there was no history of proceeding amenorrhoea and, thus, she was not pregnant at that time. Further, she did not give any history of her medical termination of pregnancy at the time of preparation of the MLC.

6. Further investigation revealed that at the time of alleged incident on 30th January, 2020 the petitioner was attending some relative's daughter's wedding at night on 30th January, 2020 at Gurugram and came to his house at village Sikanderpur on 31st January, 2020 early morning. Thus, he had not visited the rented accommodation of the prosecutrix. Even on 8-9th February, 2020 the petitioner was not in Haryana and he had gone to Mehndipur Balaji, Rajasthan along with Somdas.

7. Further verifications have also been carried out from the CDR locations and it was revealed that the petitioner never called up the mobile phone of the prosecutrix.

8. Considering the investigation carried out till date, this Court deems it fit to grant regular bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with one Surety Bond of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/ Duty Magistrate, further subject to the condition that the petitioner will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court concerned, and in case of change of his mobile phone and/ or the residential address, the same will be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit.

9. Petition is disposed of.

10. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

MAY 24, 2021 vk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA BAIL APPLN. 1593/2021 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:24.05.2021 22:28:09