Delhi High Court
Gulshan Kumar @ Gulli vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 6 February, 2017
Author: P.S. Teji
Bench: P.S.Teji
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 125/2017
Date of Decision: February 06th, 2017
GULSHAN KUMAR @ GULLI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Meghna
Sharma, Advocates
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sundershan Joon, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S. TEJI, J
1. The present application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner/accused for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.379/2016, under Sections 342/354/354-B/354-D/363/34 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act and 67-B/67 of the I.T. Act, Police Station Vasant Kunj North.
2. The facts, emerging from the record, are that the complainant/prosecutrix had made a statement to the police that she was student of class 10th and she was aged 16 years. She had a Facebook ID which the prosecutrix was using for the last about 1½ years. About 6-7 months back, a friend request was received from Bail Application No.125/2017 Page 1 of 5 one Gulli which was accepted by the prosecutrix, and they had been subsequently chatting with each other. One day, Gulli asked the prosecutrix to meet him. When the prosecutrix was coming from her school, Gulli was found waiting in the DESU street along with a boy. Gulli asked the prosecutrix to have a talk with him. Thereafter, those boys took the prosecutrix to a nearby house by deceitful means where Gulli started forcing himself upon the prosecutrix. Gulli undressed the prosecutrix and clicked her photographs. The prosecutrix raised an alarm and managed to get out from there. Due to fear, she could not narrate the incident to anyone but blocked the facebook ID of Gulli. Prior to filing of FIR, Gulli sent the photographs which were clicked by him from the same facebook ID. Thereafter, a friend request was received from one Sonia Singh which was accepted by the prosecutrix. Later on it was revealed that the said ID was not of a girl rather it was of a boy and upon finding this out, the prosecutrix stopped chatting. A phone number was sent on the facebook and prosecutrix was asked to make a call on the said number. The prosecutrix made a call to the said phone number from the mobile phone of her neighbour. A boy was talking from the other side of the phone who did not disclose his name and told the prosecutrix to talk on facebook else her photographs would be uploaded publicly Bail Application No.125/2017 Page 2 of 5 on facebook. Thereafter, ID of Sonia Singh was blocked by the prosecutrix. On 22.07.2016, neighbour Vivek of the prosecutrix informed her that he had been receiving calls on his mobile phone asking for Sonia Singh. When prosecutrix checked her facebook, she found her nude photographs on the facebook ID of Sonia Singh which were clicked by accused Gulshan @ Gulli.
3. On the basis of above statement of the prosecutrix, FIR of the instant case was registered. Accused was arrested and his mobile phone was seized wherein the nude photographs of the prosecutrix were found saved. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she reiterated the allegations made by her in the complaint made to the police. During investigation, the facebook ID of accused was checked and it was found that nude photographs of the prosecutrix were uploaded by him.
4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State were heard.
5. Argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that nothing incriminating has come on record against the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since last about 8 months. There is no evidence to show any link of petitioner with Sonia Bail Application No.125/2017 Page 3 of 5 Singh whose ID was allegedly used to upload the pictures of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix in her cross examination admitted that on the date of incident she was at her home. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are false.
6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has argued that the offence committed by the accused is a serious one. Firstly, the accused took the prosecutrix to a house under deceitful means and then tried to force himself upon the prosecutrix and then he had taken nude photographs of the prosecutrix after undressing her. Thereafter, the nude photographs were uploaded by the accused on the internet which maligned the reputation of the prosecutrix.
7. From the facts brought on record and the submissions made by both the sides, it is apparent that the prosecutrix has specifically stated that she was taken to a house by the accused under deceitful means where her clothes were removed by the accused. She has also stated that the accused tried to force himself upon her and then had taken several nude photographs which were later on uploaded on the internet.
8. The allegations levelled against the accused are serious in nature in view of the fact that firstly he tried to force upon the prosecutrix and then after removing her clothes, he had taken photographs of the prosecutrix which were subsequently uploaded Bail Application No.125/2017 Page 4 of 5 on the internet. In this way, the accused has maligned the reputation and chastity of the prosecutrix. In a civilised society, these types of acts are unwarranted. So far the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner are concerned, no comment on the same can be made at this stage as the same are subject matter of trial and the same can be answered only at the time of passing final judgment.
9. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances and the seriousness of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of bail to the accused.
10. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of the trial.
11. With aforesaid directions, the present bail application stands dismissed.
P.S.TEJI, J FEBRUARY 06, 2017/dd Bail Application No.125/2017 Page 5 of 5