Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Bhushan Lal Khanna - Petitioner
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 2529 of 2017
Decided On : 11-07-2018
The petitioner, a US citizen, was accused of rape by the prosecutrix, a 25-year-old woman. The petitioner claimed that the physical relations were consensual and that the prosecutrix had blackmailed him into giving her money and gifts. The prosecutrix claimed that the petitioner had promised to marry her and that she had only engaged in sexual relations with him because of this promise. The court noted that the prosecutrix had gotten a cheque from the petitioner for Rs. 4 lakhs encashed and had signed a settlement agreement with him, which indicated that the relations between them were consensual. However, the court also noted that the prosecutrix was a US citizen with his family and business, and that it was possible that he had no intention of marrying her. The court ultimately granted the petitioner anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions, including that he not tamper with the evidence, threaten the witnesses, or leave the city or country without permission from the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a US citizen, was accused of rape by the prosecutrix, a 25-year-old woman. The petitioner claimed that the physical relations were consensual and that the prosecutrix had blackmailed him into giving her money and gifts. The prosecutrix claimed that the petitioner had promised to marry her and that she had only engaged in sexual relations with him because of this promise.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the prosecutrix had gotten a cheque from the petitioner for Rs. 4 lakhs encashed and had signed a settlement agreement with him, which indicated that the relations between them were consensual. However, the court also noted that the prosecutrix was a US citizen with his family and business, and that it was possible that he had no intention of marrying her.
Issues: Whether the physical relations between the petitioner and the prosecutrix were consensual or not.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the aspect of the physical relations between the petitioner and the prosecutrix being consensual or otherwise being a matter of trial and the aspect as to whether the prosecutrix was aware that the petitioner was a married man or not and that the prosecutrix has also chosen to get a cheque of Rs.4 lakhs encashed, inasmuch as the record indicates that the petitioner is a US citizen with his family and business, this Court is of the considered view that in the circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court granted the petitioner anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions, including that he not tamper with the evidence, threaten the witnesses, or leave the city or country without permission from the court.
Anu Malhotra, J.
1. The applicant of Crl. M. (Bail) 2529/2017 seeks the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to allegations levelled against him qua the alleged commission of rape of the prosecutrix Ms. ‘X’ of the offence punishable under Section 376 Cr.P.C. qua which the FIR with Police Station New Ashok Nagar was registered against the applicant on 8.6.2017 with the period of the alleged commission of the offence being from the date 7.3.2017 to 30.4.2017.
2. As per the averments made in the FIR dated 08.06.2017, the prosecutrix a resident of New Ashok Nagar, Vasundhara Enclave, East Delhi on 7.2.2017 after having taken a mobile number of the builder from her name sake brother Dalip Kumar, had gone to see a flat to be taken on rent where she met Alok Vats of the Newtech Group at his office and there were conversations in relation to rent and sales and in the meantime Alok Vats introduced her to Bhushan Lal Khanna, i.e. the petitioner herein and his partner Sanjiv, and they also insisted that she had lunch with them and they had lunch at Sagar Ratna and thereafter she was shown the flat and they came back to the office of Alok Vats who asked his driver to get her dropped at her residence and thereafter at about 10:22 p.m. she received a message on the WhatsApp from mobile No. +12516481314 in which it was stated that “How r you Shivani-10:22 p.m. This is Bhushan from Atlanta-10:29 p.m.” and on her asking that person told her that he had taken her number from Alok Vats. The prosecutrix further through the FIR submitted that she took the message lightly and chatted with that person and he asked her to make a phone call and WhatsApp call to her and that night they had a conversation in relation to rent and sales of flats whereafter there were daily conversations and the petitioner also told her that one of his apartments was to be vacated and she could take the same on rent @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. The prosecutrix stated that she requested that she be allowed to see the flat but she was not shown the flat and the petitioner kept on repeatedly making chats and WhatsApp calls to her.
3. As per the FIR, thereafter on 13.2.2017, the petitioner telephoned her and informed her that he had booked movie tickets for 1:30 p.m. and during the movie he held her hand and she did not take this act lightly and pushed off his hand and after the movie, the petitioner left her home and called her in the night and told her that the next day, i.e., on 14.2.2017, he was going to Atlanta, U.S.A and that he would show her the flat and then he suddenly told her to meet him between 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on 14.2.2017. As per the FIR, the prosecutrix submitted that the next date on 14.2.2017 she went to meet him and the petitioner started speaking to her sweetly and told her that he was a divorcee and wanted to marry a girl like her and he gave her a rose and a chocolate and proposed love to her and on hearing the same she was taken slightly aback and told him that there was a lot of difference in their ages to which the petitioner responded that in Atlanta, USA, this was a normal feature and asked her to accept his proposal and told her that she could take time and then he took his flight to USA, whereafter both of them continued on the WhatsApp chat and there were conversations about themselves made by them, i.e., the petitioner and the prosecutrix and they got attracted to each other and the petitioner also informed her that he was returning to India and that he would take a flat on rent near her residence and would also teach her a lot of things like speaking English, reducing weight and becoming self dependent and he showed her big dreams and made her dream.
4. As per the FIR after several days he told her that when he came to the airport at India, she alone should come and meet him and on 3.3.2017 she went to the Indira Gandhi International Airport to pick him up and she g
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
