Delhi High Court - Orders
Anmol @ Ankit Goel vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 6 September, 2022
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1681/2022
ANMOL @ ANKIT GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. C. M. Grover, Adv.
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF
DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan,Addl.PP for State
IO Insp. Ravi Kr., PS Mahendra Park
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA
ORDER
% 06.09.2022
1.0 This is the third bail application of the petitioner. His earlier two bail
applications were dismissed by Ld. ASJ vide orders dated 05.02.2022 and 31.03.2022.
2.0 Vide this application under section 439 Cr.PC, the petitioner has sought bail in FIR No. 0787/2021, dated 03.07.2021, u/Ss. 377/34 IPC & section 4 POCSO Act, PS Mahendra Park.
3.0 Prosecution case is that the child K ('victim' in short) aged about 15 years complained that about a year ago, his neighbour Pankaj Parcha, called him at his house and committed unnatural sex with him. Thereafter, said Pankaj Parcha continued to have unnatural sex with him by threatening him that if he refused to allow, his parents will be informed about it. Subsequently, accused Pankaj Parcha told about this to his friend Ankit 0Goel @ Anmol/the petitioner herein, who also sexually exploited and had Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1681/2022 Page 1 of 6 By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2022 13:10:54 unnatural sex with the victim many a times. The petitioner even threatened and asked the victim to send his nude video on his mobile phone otherwise he would disclose everything to victim's parents. Out of fear, the victim child sent his nude video to the petitioner Ankit Goel @ Anmol's whatsapp, which was uploaded by him as his Facebook story. As the victim's woes became unending, he narrated the entire happenings to his mother and subsequently, the present case came to be registered on the complaint/statement of the victim.
4.0 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated on the basis of vague averments of the complainant/victim as being neighbour, the petitioner had intervened in some dispute between the complainant and co-accused namely Pankaj Parcha. It is further submitted that an effort was made to extort money from the petitioner and when that effort failed, a false complaint was lodged to create pressure.
4.1 It is submitted that there are discrepancies in the victim's version in his complaint and his statements u/S. 161 Cr.PC and u/S. 164 Cr.PC; the victim has made improvements in every following statement. Ld. counsel for the petitioner also argued that the complaint was made/FIR was registered one year after the alleged incident, which itself raises doubt about the same.
4.2 It is further submitted that petitioner is a young boy. The petitioner is the only earning member of his family as he lost his father on 04.05.2021. Further, the petitioner himself had surrendered before the Ld. Trial Court on 14.01.2022 and is in judicial custody since then.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1681/2022 Page 2 of 6 By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2022 13:10:544.3 Ld. counsel for the petitioner also argued that the complainant's own sister in G.D.No. 0006-A, recorded on her call on number 100 on 29.06.2021, stated that her brother/victim has clarified that there was no such incident. Thus, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. He is ready to comply with any term and condition as may be imposed by this court.
5.0 Per contra, Ld. Prosecutor strongly opposed this application pleading that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of sexually abusing the victim under threat. It is submitted that the victim has been consistent in his version about such exploitation in his complaint, statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC as well as u/s. 164 Cr.PC. Minor inconsistency in statements of the minor victim cannot be treated as improvements and are the facts narrated, which are a matter of trial.
5.1 Ld. Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner did not join investigation and kept evading the process of law and ultimately NBWs were issued against him on 08.10.2021. NBWs also remained unexecuted and thus, proceedings u/S. 82 Cr.PC were initiated against the petitioner on 03.12.2021. She also submitted that only after the petitioner's anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this court, he surrendered before the Ld. Trial Court on 14.01.2022, the last date for which proclamation u/S. 82 Cr.PC was returnable. The petitioner/accused was formally arrested on 18.01.2022. His potency test was got conducted vide MLC dated 20.01.2022, which opined that the petitioner was not incapable of performing sexual intercourse.
6.0 I have duly considered the submissions made by both the sides.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1681/2022 Page 3 of 6 By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2022 13:10:547.0 There are serious allegations against the petitioner of subjecting the minor victim to unnatural sex. Attention of this court is drawn to the victim's complaint/statement dated 03.07.2021, his supplementary statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC recorded on 04.07.2021 & 07.01.2022, wherein he stated that his neighbour Pankaj Parcha, called him at his house and committed unnatural sex with him. Thereafter, said Pankaj Parcha continued to have unnatural sex with him by threatening him that if he refused to allow, his parents will be informed about it. Subsequently, accused Pankaj Parcha told about this to his friend Ankit Goel @ Anmol/the petitioner herein, who also sexually exploited and had unnatural sex with the victim many a times and also pressurized to make a nude video of himself and send to the petitioner, otherwise he will tell his parents. Out of fear, the victim sent his nude video to the petitioner through Whatsapp, who uploaded the same on his Facebook story.
7.1 In his second supplementary statement dated 07.01.2022, the victim has stated that by luring and intimidating him, the petitioner had (unnatural) sex with him thrice in the month of March and April, dates he could not remember; and that the petitioner did so in the back room of his house when there was none at home. He also stated that he (victim) was also pressurized to make a nude video of himself and send to the petitioner. He has also mentioned about sending of the video to the petitioner and later on deleting the same from his phone. He has given further details how he came to know about posting of the video on his Facebook story by the petitioner, besides providing other details. In his subsequent statement, victim clarified that he sent the video only to the present petitioner and not to the other accused Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1681/2022 Page 4 of 6 By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2022 13:10:54 person. The victim in his statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC has reiterated these allegations besides providing other details of how his exploitation started.
7.2 From the above, it is apparent that the averments/allegations made by the victim remained the same in all his statements, though, he had provided details in his subsequent statements. The same cannot be stated to be discrepancies or improvements so as to create doubt about the very allegations levelled against the petitioner. Thus, the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this court in Ravinder Singh Verma vs. State, 2019[3] JCC 3214 relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, is of no assistance to the petitioner.
7.3 It is seen that the victim in his statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC has stated that the petitioner had apologised in writing to him; and their neighbours had intervened to ask the victim/his family to drop the complaint against the petitioner. Ld. Prosecutor has drawn attention of this court to a "Mafinama"/apology letter dated 28.06.2021 of the petitioner, which forms part of the charge-sheet, wherein the petitioner has admitted having done wrong (Galat Kiya) against the victim and has apologised, undertaking not to repeat such an act.
8.0 Ld. Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner was previously involved in a similar offence vide FIR No. 363/2014, u/s. 6 POCSO Act, PS Mahendra Park, when he was a minor and was tried as a CCL by JJB-I. Same is not disputed, but it is submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was acquitted in that case. Ld. Prosecutor in this regard submitted that the petitioner was acquitted in that case not on merits, but as the victim turned hostile.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1681/2022 Page 5 of 6 By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2022 13:10:548.1 Ld. counsel for the petitioner also submitted that although charge- sheet in the matter has been filed, the victim and other material witnesses are yet to be examined.
9.0 Considering the seriousness of allegations against the petitioner and other facts and circumstances in entirety and also taking into account the fact that victim and other material witnesses are yet to be examined, possibility of them being influenced, if the petitioner is released on bail, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.
10.0 The application is dismissed accordingly.
11.0 It may be mentioned that any observation made hereinabove shall not tantamount to expression of opinion on merits of the case.
POONAM A. BAMBA, J SEPTEMBER 6, 2022/manju Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1681/2022 Page 6 of 6 By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2022 13:10:54