Kavita @ Laxmi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 September, 2021

[Cites 37, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Kavita @ Laxmi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 September, 2021

1. The applicant vide the present application under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973, seeks the grant of bail in relation to FIR No. 477/2016, Police Station New Ashok Nagar, registered under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in relation to which the charge sheet was filed under Section 363/366A/368/370/372/373/342/376D/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3&4 of the ITP Act and Section 4 & 10 of the POCSO Act, the charges having been framed on 16.12.2017 under Sections 342/363/366A/368/370A/373/376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 6 & 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 5 of the ITP Act.

2. It is the avowed contention on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is in custody for the last 4 ½ years in as much as the applicant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

has been incarcerated since 3.3.2017 with reliance having been placed on behalf of the applicant on the status report that was submitted by the State dated 25.8.2021 submitted under the signatures of the SHO, Police Station New Ashok Nagar to the effect vide paragraph 5 thereof that the applicant was arrested on 3.3.2017. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the charge sheet in the instant case was not filed till the date 2.6.2017 as would be brought out through the order dated 2.6.2017 of the learned trial Court, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge -01, Special POCSO Court, East District in relation to an application of a co-accused named Satbir it had been categorically observed to the effect that the co-accused named Satbir was arrested on 3.3.2017 and 90 days had since elapsed and the charge sheet had not been filed within the prescribed period and thus the said accused was entitled to be compulsorily released from custody and was thus allowed to be released from custody. It has thus been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the charge sheet had clearly not been filed within a period of 90 days in terms of the requirement of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, which does not permit for further incarceration of the accused beyond the period of 90 days in terms thereof.

3. Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 reads to the effect:

Section 167(2) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 " (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that-

(a) 1 the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub- section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;]

(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him;

(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. 1 Explanation I.- For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail;]. 2 Explanation II.- If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph

(b), the production of the accused person may be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

proved by his signature on the order authorising detention.]"

4. It has thus been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the period of 90 days expired on the date 31.5.2021 and that on 1.6.2017, the applicant had become entitled to the grant of default bail.

5. The State has vehemently opposed the said submission submitting to the effect that the applicant had not chosen to file the application seeking default bail and had not even chosen to file the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, even after the filing of the charge sheet at that stage and thus the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was entitled to default bail, cannot be granted.

6. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the applicant on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul V. State of Assam; SLP (Crl.) No. 2009/2017 with SLP (Crl.) No. 2176/2017 also titled as Rakesh Kumar Paul V. State of Assam; a verdict dated 16.8.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been observed to the effect that the grant of default bail and the entitlement to be represented by a lawyer are both indefeasible rights of an accused. It has thus been submitted on behalf of the applicant that it is a matter of personal liberty of the applicant to which he is entitled to in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the infringement thereof cannot be taken lightly. It has thus been submitted on behalf of the applicant that in as much as the State had on 5.6.2017 filed an application seeking 14 days' judicial custody remand of the accused persons named Krishna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

Kumar, Jyoti, Satbir, Mukesh Thakur, Mamta and Kavita @ Laxmi (the present applicant), on the date 5.6.2017 stating therein categorically to the effect that the accused persons had been arrested on the date of arrest mentioned against them which is mentioned in the said application for judicial custody remand as being 3.3.2017, with it having been submitted by the State through the said application that the investigation of the case was in progress but yet to be completed. It was thus submitted on behalf of the applicant that it was brought forth categorically through this application dated 5.6.2017 filed by the Investigating Officer of Police Station New Ashok Nagar that the investigation in the matter had not been completed till the date 5.6.2017 and thus it was the bounden duty of the learned Trial Court to give an opportunity to the applicant to seek the grant of default bail.

7. As has been discussed herein above on behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the prayer seeking grant of default bail or bail in any form was not made by the applicant at that stage and thus the provisions of 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, cannot be invoked.

8. On behalf of the State reliance is sought to be placed on the verdict of this Court in Bail Appln. No. 3141/2020 a verdict dated 6.11.2020 with observations in paragraph 39 thereof, which reads to the effect.

"39. The two principles that emerge from the above ruling in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) are that

(i) the Court cannot release an accused on bail on its own motion without any application from the accused offering to furnish bail; and (ii) that the investigating/prosecuting agency must be put to notice.", Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

thus submitting to the effect that the Court cannot release the accused on bail on its own motion without any application from the accused offering to furnish bail.

9. It is essential to observe that in the verdict that has been relied upon on behalf of the applicant i.e., the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul V. State of Assam, a verdict dated 16.8.2017, vide paragraph 98 the questions that arose in the two appeals for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were delineated as being:

" 98. The three main questions that arise in these appeals for our consideration are as under:

98.1 (i) Whether in a case regarding offence for which the punishment imposable may extend up to ten years, the accused is entitled to bail under Section 16792) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 due to default on the part of the investigating agency in not filing the charge-sheet within sixty days?

98.2 (ii) Whether the appellant is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code though he has not made any application (oral or written) under Section 167(2) of the code before the Magistrate (or Special Judge), but has instead argued orally without pleadings in a pending regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code before the High Court?

98.3 (iii) Whether the appellant is entitled to bail on merits?"

10. The question necessary for consideration in the present matter is the question mentioned in paragraph 98.2 referred to herein above. The answer to the question in paragraph 98.2 which relates to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

entitlement of the accused therein to the grant of default bail though he made no application neither oral or written under Section 167(2) before a Magistrate or Special Judge but had instead orally argued without pleadings in a pending bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code before the High Court, was answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide observations in paragraphs 108 to 113 of the said verdict which read to the effect:

"108. The second issue which requires to be addressed is whether the Appellant is entitled to statutory bail Under Section 167(2) of the Code though he has not made any application Under Section 167(2) of the Code before the Magistrate(or Special Judge) prior to the filing of the charge sheet. The record of the case reveals that the Appellant was arrested on 4.11.2016 and produced before the Magistrate on 5.11.2016 and he was remanded to custody for the first time. The period of sixty days for filing charge sheet expired on 04.01.2017. The charge sheet came to be filed on 24.1.2017. Initially the Appellant had applied for regular bail before the Sessions Court which came to be rejected on 20.12.2016. Thereafter he moved bail application No. 23/2017 for bail Under Section 439 of the Code before the High Court of Guwahati. This bail application was disposed on 11.01.2017 which was after sixty days of arrest, but prior to filing of charge sheet. A perusal of this bail application shows that this bail application was moved Under Section 439 of the Code for regular bail on merits and not as a bail claiming the statutory right Under Section 167 of the Code. In none of the grounds taken in the bail application, the Appellant has pleaded for default bail as a result of non filing of the charge sheet. All the grounds urged are on merits. The prayer is also for regular bail. It appears that, prior to the time of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

hearing, the counsel for the Appellant has realised that the Accused was entitled for default bail Under Section 167(2)and has taken the plea in the oral arguments in the High Court that since sixty days for filing charge sheet has expired, he is entitled to bail as matter of right Under Section 167(2) of the Code. The question thus arises, whether such application on merits can be equated to be an application seeking enforcement of statutory right Under Section 167(2) of the Code and whether such practice of taking such oral arguments directly before the High Court in a pending regular bail application without having taken such grounds in the application or having approached the Magistrate(or Special Court) should be entertained.

109. The legal position regarding bail Under Section 167(2) of the Code was cemented by a Constitution Bench of this Court which has inter alia held in the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay that: ...

"53.(2) (b)The "'indefeasible right" of the Accused to be released on bail in accordance with Section 20(4)(bb) of the TADA Act read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in default of completion of the investigation and filing of the challan within the time allowed, as held in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, is a right which enures to, and is enforceable by the Accused only from the time of default till the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed. If the Accused applies for bail under this provision on expiry of the period of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, then he has to be released on bail forthwith. The accused, so Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

released on bail may be arrested and committed to custody according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The right of the Accused to be released on bail after filing of the challan, notwithstanding the default in filing it within the time allowed, is governed from the time of filing of the challan only by the provisions relating to the grant of bail applicable at that stage..."

110. In Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra three Judge Bench of this Court had the occasion to determine when an Accused can be said to have availed of his indefeasible right for being released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a challan is not filed within the period stipulated thereunder. The Court held in a majority of 2:1 that the indefeasible right is said to be availed at the time when an application is made for enforcement of the right Under Section 167(2) of the Code and the Accused offers to abide by the terms and conditions of bail. While holding so, the court, in para 11, interpreted the decision in Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, a three Judge Bench decision of this Court, as under:

"11. In this case (Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal), the Accused had not made application for enforcement of his right accruing under proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code. But raised the contention only in the Supreme Court. This Court, therefore, formulated the question thus- Whether the Accused who was entitled to be released on bail under proviso to Sub- section (2) of Section 167 of the Code, not having made an application when such Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

right had accrued, can exercise that right at a later stage of the proceeding, and answered in the negative."

111. The requirement for making the application for seeking enforcement of the right Under Section 167(2) has been recognised in several cases. In the case of Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, this Court rejected the claim for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code on the ground that no application was made on that ground. In para 11 of the judgment the Court held as under:

" 11.So far the facts of the present case are concerned, the Appellant Nos. 1 to 6 were taken into custody on 16.1.1993. The chargesheet was submitted on 30.8.1993; obviously beyond the statutory period Under Section 20(4)(b). There is nothing on record to show that provisions of Section 20(4)(bb) were applied in respect of Appellants. They had become entitled to be released on bail under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code read with Section 20(4)(b) of the TADA. But it is an admitted position that no application for bail on the said ground was made on behalf of the Appellants. Unless applications had been made on behalf of the Appellants, there was no question of their being released on ground of default in completion of the investigation within the statutory period. It is now settled that this right cannot be exercised after the charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken, because in that event the remand of the Accused concerned including one who is alleged to have committed an offence Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

under TADA, is not Under Section 167(2) but under other provisions of the Code."

112. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, it was held in para 30 that:

"In conclusion, we may (even at the cost of repetition) say that an Accused person seeking bail under Section 20(4) has to make an application to the court for grant of bail on grounds of the 'default' of the prosecution and the court shall release the Accused on bail after notice to the public prosecutor uninfluenced by the gravity of the offence or the merits of the prosecution case since Section 20(8) does not control the grant of bail Under Section 20(4) of TADA and both the provisions operate in separate and independent fields. It is, however, permissible for the public prosecutor to resist the grant of bail by seeking an extension under Clause(bb) by filing a report for the purpose before the court. However, no extension shall be granted by the court without notice to an Accused to have his say regarding the prayer for grant of extension under Clause(bb). In this view of the matter, it is immaterial whether the application for bail on ground of' default' Under Section 20(4) is filed first or the report as envisaged by Clause(bb) is filed by the public prosecutor first so long as both are considered while granting or refusing bail."

113. The law laid down as above shows that the requirement of an application claiming the statutory right Under Section 167(2) of the Code is a prerequisite for the grant of bail on default. In my Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

opinion, such application has to be made before the Magistrate for enforcement of the statutory right. In the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act or other Acts where Special Courts are constituted by excluding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, it has to be made before such Special Court. In the present case, for the reasons discussed, since the Appellant never sought default bail before the court concerned, as such not entitled to the same.", with it thus having been held categorically vide paragraph 113 adverted to hereinabove that since the appellant had never sought default bail before the Court concerned, as such he was not entitled to the same.

11. In the instant case too, there is nothing on the record to indicate that the applicant had sought grant of any default bail. It is however the submission raised on behalf of the applicant by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not legally represented and it was the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that there was a compliance of the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 as had been made even on the date 2.6.2017 in relation to the application of the co- accused named Satbir. In relation to this aspect, it is essential to observe that vide a verdict dated 14.3.2018 of this Court in Bail Appln. No. 2238/2017 titled Arvind Kumar Saxena V. State, there are observations in para 21 of the said verdict whereby it has inter alia been observed to the effect that the Registrar General of this Court was requested to explore the possibility of creation of a database and software for the District Courts of Delhi for updation of the date in relation to the pending remand applications during the course of investigation pending before the Trial Courts with the dates of arrest and dates by when the requisite chare-sheet is to be filed in terms of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the date when the said charge-sheet has been filed which would assist the learned Trial Courts in preservation of the rights of personal liberties of the accused appearing before them by informing the accused on coming to know that an accused person before them is entitled to the indefeasible right of default bail and may thus exercise the same if he / she is willing to furnish bail.

12. Be that as it may, apparently, the prayer seeking the grant of default bail or bail even in terms of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 had not been made by the applicant prior to the impugned order. In the circumstances, the prayer made by the applicant in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, the verdict of this Court in Subhash Bahadur @ Upender V. State (N.C.T. of Delhi), cannot be granted in view of the findings in paragraph 113 of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul V. State of Assam, referred to herein above.

13. As regards the prayer made by the applicant for the grant of regular bail in terms of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, on merits in the instant case with it having been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is in custody for the last 4 ½ years, that two other co- accused in the instant case, i.e., Jyoti and Mamta with virtually similar allegations have been released on bail, and that status report of the State indicates to the effect that there are 21 witnesses who still remain to be examined and the examination of whom would take ample time, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant be released on bail.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

14. It has further been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded before the learned Trial Court is not worthy of credence and does not inspire any confidence and it is stated in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 dated 2.3.2017 also there is only one sentence against the applicant which is insufficient for a continuous incarceration.

15. The said prayer has been vehemently opposed on behalf of the State by the learned APP for the State placing reliance on the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 of the prosecutrix wherein the prosecutrix has stated " Phir Kavita bhi mujhe night par bhejti thi 5000-6000 rupay me" which is dated 2.3.2017 recorded by the learned Link Magistrate. The State also adverts to the testimony of the prosecutrix annexed as Annexure P-5 (colly) to the present petition wherein the prosecutrix has identified the applicant and stated to the effect:

"I remained in the house of accused Satbir for about six days and on all the six nights, I was being sent for prostitution work.

After that accused Mukesh @ Thakur took me to bus stand near Shivani where accused Kavita (identified by me during pre lunch session met me and accused Kavita took me to her house. Accused Satbir had sold me to accused Kavita for Rs. 8,000/- and he made payment of Rs.8,000/- to accused Kavita. In reply to the court query, witness again states that the payment of Rs. 8,000/- was made by accused Satbir to Kavita in my presence at the bus stand where accused Satbir and accused Mukesh @ Thakur both had brought her and handed over to accused Kavita.

Accused Kavita took me to her house situated in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

Shivani. In that house, husband of accused Kavita (name not known) her son and daughter in law used to live. There were two rooms in that house, one in the ground floor and another on the first floor. I was kept on the room situated on the first floor of that house. Accused Kavita used to call customers in that house during day time and forced me to do prostitution work. During night, accused Kavita used to send to the customers along with one boy (name not known) to different different hotels (names not known) where customers used to forcibly commit rape upon me. Accused Kavita kept me in her house for eight days and during those eight days, every day I used to be sent to different different customers. In the manner as deposed by me, payment regarding the prostitution work got done from me in the house of Kavita was taken by her and for the prostitution work done in the hotels, the boy who used to take me, used to collect the payments.

One Savita used to visit house of accused Kavita, purchased me from accused Kavita for consideration of Rs. 5,000/- and in my presence, Savita made payment of Rs. 5,000/- to accused Kavita. After that Savita took me to her room which was situated nearby the house of accused Kavita. Savita used to remain in that house along with her two daughters. Savita also got prostitution work done from me through her house during day time and during nights, she used to send me to different different hotels alongwith one boy (name not known) where customers used to make forcible relations with me. I remained at the house of Savita for six days and during that period prostitution work was got done from her by Savita."

16. The testimony of the prosecutrix in response to the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Kavita, the applicant herein was to the effect:

" At the time of incident, I was studying in 8th Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

standard. I started studying in that school from 6th standard onwards. I cannot tell the distance of the house of accused Kavita @ Laxmi from the bus stand of Shivani but it was at a far distance as I never went on foot. I cannot tell the denomination of currency notes in which payment of Rs. 8000/- was made to Kavita by accused Satbir. It is incorrect to suggest that I cannot tell the denomination as no such payment was made. The window of the house of accused Kavita was not road facing. I did not raise any alarm seeking help from public person from the house of accused Kavita. I had come to know about the husband. son and daughter in law of accused Kavita on the day I was taken to her house as they were addressing accused Kavita with words "mummy". Today I do not remember the name of husband of accused Kavita. It is incorrect to suggest that the person present in the house was not the husband of Kavita. I cannot say if the husband of Kavita expired in the year 2005. at the time of my kidnapping, my father was using the mobile no. and I remembered the said mobile no. which was 97 ... .... .. 72 (exact no. told to the court). In all the premises where ever I stayed during the whole period, I was not allowed to use mobile phone. I never tried to flee away and to request to any passers by, any hawker, shopkeep any neighbours of stay area, to make a mobile call to my father to apprise him about my kidnapping. I never tried to make a call to my father whenever I travelled alone. Q. can you tell any reason despite the opportunity ·why you did not make call to your father? A. The customer only gave Rs. 30/- i.e. fare of my travel and nothing more that is why I could not make a call.

I never requested to conductor or driver of the bus wherein I used to travel alone to inform my parents. I cannot tell the exact address i.e. the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

name of colony, street or house no. where accused Satbir and Krishan used to reside. I cannot tell the exact date and month, when accused Krishan sold me to accused Satbir. I did not seek any help from neighbor of accused Satbir while living in his house for my rescue.

My statement was recorded first time in PS New Ashok Nagar and my statement was obtained on that day. My statement was read over to me by the Police Officer.

It is correct that I have stated to police in my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that I was sold to accused Satbir by accused Krishan for consideration Rs. 6,000/-. (confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 03.03.17 Ex. PW1/DA1 wherein it is not so recorded).

It is correct that I have stated to police in my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that I was sold to accused Satbir me to accused Kavita for consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. (confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 03.03.17 Ex.PWl/DA1 wherein it is not so recorded).

It is correct that I have stated to police in my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that kavita took me to her house situated in Shivani. In that house husband of Kavita, her son and daughter in law used to live. (confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 03.03.17 Ex.PW1/DA1 wherein it is not so recorded). It is correct that I have stated to police in my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that accused Lali made call to accused Satbir that I was having stomach pain and accused Satbir refused to pick me up. (confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 03.03.17 Ex.PW1/DA1 wherein It is not so recorded) .

I cannot tell the exact time how much time I stayed at the house of Lali. It is incorrect to suggest that I was recovered from the house of Lali. It is incorrect to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

suggest that accused Kavita used to work as house maid in the house of accused Mamta. It is incorrect to suggest that I identified accused Kavita in the PS at the instance of Police or that I am deposing falsely at the instance of police officials. It is incorrect to suggest that accused Kavita @ Laxmi and Satbir did not commit any act with me or prostitution work from me."

17. It has further been submitted on behalf of the applicant by learned counsel for the applicant that even the learned Trial Court had put a Court query to the prosecutrix in relation to her contention that she had been sold for a sum of Rs.8,000/- to Kavita which itself falsified the prosecution version of the sale of the prosecutrix by Satbir to Kavita for further prostitution.

18. It has thus been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the testimony of the prosecutrix being unworthy of credit, the applicant be allowed to be released on bail.

19. On a consideration of the submissions that have been made on behalf of either side, without any observations on merits or demerits of the trial that is in progress, taking into account the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 adverted to herein above and the testimony of the prosecutrix also before the learned Trial Court wherein she categorically averred to the effect that the applicant herein made her indulge into prostitution even at her house and used to send her to different places at night for sum of Rs.5000/- to 6000/- which she got from that prostitution work despite contentions raised on behalf of the applicant that two other co-accused in the instant case have been granted bail, there is no ground whatsoever for grant of bail Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

in the instant case. The application is declined.

ANU MALHOTRA, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2021/sv Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.09.2021 14:01:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders