Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State relies upon (1997) 7 SCC 187 [State rep. by the C.B.I vs. Anil Sharma] and (2019) 9 SCC 24 [P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement] and submits that, since there is a requirement of custodial interrogation and considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioner therein, prayer for anticipatory bail should be rejected.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant relies upon a written notes of arguments. He submits that, the petitioner is alleged to commit gang rape upon the de facto complaint which provides for punishment of rigorous imprisonment for not less than 20 years and which can extend to life imprisonment. He submits that, the delay in lodging the First Information Report was explained by the de facto complainant. He highlights the fact that the de facto complainant comes from a poor economical background and due to disease and precarious health conditions of her husband there was some delay. The husband of the de facto complainant donated a portion of his liver to the deceased father of the petitioner. He submits that, the accused which includes the petitioner were threatening the de facto complainant. The accused including the petitioner took photographs of the de facto complainant and threatened the de facto complainant of releasing the same on the Internet, if the de facto complainant went to the police and complained about the gang rape. According to him, the accused person is influential and powerful and, therefore, in the event, the accused persons including the petitioner are enlarged on bail or anticipatory bail, there is likelihood of the de facto complainant being threatened all over again.

10. He submits that the contention of the petitioner that the present police complaint is counterblast to the probate proceeding is wholly unfounded. The de facto complainant is no way connected with the probate proceedings. The de facto complainant is not a beneficiary under the Will of the deceased. In fact, the husband of the de facto complainant donated a portion of his liver to the deceased.

11. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submits that the charge sheet establishes the complicity of the petitioner in the incident. According to him, there are close connections between the petitioner and the other co-accused who is in custody. He relies upon (2021) 6 SCC 191 [Naveen Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.] and submits that prayer for bail should be rejected.

13. The present police case arose out of a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant on December 27, 2020. The police registered a First Information Report on the basis of such complaint on January 28, 2021. In the complaint, the de facto complainant alleges of two incidents of rape - one of February 25, 2020 at Southern Avenue and the other on December 26, 2020 at the office of Haldiram at Exide Crossing. There is a connection between the de facto complainant and the petitioner herein. The connection is the husband of the de facto complainant who donated a portion of his liver to the deceased father of the petitioner, Mahesh Agarwal. There is a probate proceeding pending in respect of the estate of Mahesh Agarwal, since deceased. It is claimed in such probate proceeding that Mahesh Agarwala, since deceased, left behind a Will and testament dated December 14, 2019 whereby he bequeathed a portion of his estate to the petitioner and a major portion of the estate to the aunty Manju Agarwal and cousin Sharad Agarwal of the petitioner.

23. The police complaint dated December 27, 2020 is in respect of incidents which firstly happened on February 25, 2020 and secondly on December 26, 2020. The petitioner is not involved in the incident dated December 26, 2020 even on the basis of the complaint of the de facto complainant dated December 27, 2020. It is alleged as against the petitioner that the petitioner was part of the gang ravishing the de facto complainant on February 25, 2020 and that the petitioner along with the other co-accused took offensive photographs of the de facto complainant. The mobile phone of the other co- accused was seized by the police. There is no material in the case diary suggesting that the mobile phone of such co- accused contained any offensive pictures of the de facto complainant as alleged by her.