Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BRIJESH SETHI, J.
Sajid - Petitioner
Versus
State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) – Respondent
Bail Appln. 1929 of 2019
Decided On : 21-11-2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ram Kumar, Mohd. Asif and Bramjeet Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. G.M.Farooqui, APP, SI Dinesh Kumar: PS Jamia Nagar
The seriousness of the offense of rape, the inability to compound or settle such offenses, and the lack of exoneration through subsequent marriage were central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
BAIL - Disposal of bail application u/s. 439(1) r.w. Section 482 CrPC - FIR No. 1297/2016, under Section 376 IPC & Sec. 6 POCSO Act - [Section 376 IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act] - The court discussed the serious nature of the allegations, the evidence, and the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the offense. It emphasized that the offense of rape is serious and grave and cannot be compounded or settled, and subsequent marriage does not exonerate the accused from the alleged commission of the offense. The court also considered the victim's testimony and the discrepancy in her date of birth certificates, ultimately dismissing the bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application stating that he was innocent and falsely implicated, emphasizing the marriage/nikah performed between the prosecutrix and petitioner, and the contradictory versions provided by the complainant during the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the bail application, considering the serious nature of the allegations, the evidence, and the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the offense. It emphasized that the offense of rape is serious and grave and cannot be compounded or settled, and subsequent marriage does not exonerate the accused from the alleged commission of the offense. The court also considered the victim's testimony and the discrepancy in her date of birth certificates.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's innocence, the marriage/nikah between the prosecutrix and petitioner, contradictory versions provided by the complainant during the investigation, and the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the serious nature of the allegations, the evidence, and the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the offense. It emphasized that the offense of rape is serious and grave and cannot be compounded or settled, and subsequent marriage does not exonerate the accused from the alleged commission of the offense. The court also considered the victim's testimony and the discrepancy in her date of birth certificates.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, and the court disposed of the matter accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
BRIJESH SETHI, J.
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of a bail application u/s. 439(1) r.w. Section 482 CrPC filed by the petitioner Sajid in FIR No. 1297/2016, under Section 376 IPC & Sec. 6 POCSO Act, P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi and setting aside of impugned order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-01 South-East, Special court (POCSO), Saket District Court, New Delhi.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated. He has clean antecedents. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the marriage/nikah was performed between the prosecutrix and petitioner according to muslim rites and rituals and they have started living as husband and wife and prosecutrix got pregnant. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that complainant gave contradictory version under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. during the investigation. Two documents for determining the age of the prosecutrix has come on record which are contrary to each other.
3. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the investigation in the present case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial court has failed to give any cogent reason while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner and passed the impugned order only on the basis of apprehension.
4. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that the complainant in conspiracy with her associates with intention to grab the property of the petitioner opened fire upon her mother and got registered the case and IO of the said case after investigation filed cancellation against the petitioner which clearly proves the conspiracy against the petitioner.
5. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the charges were framed on 15.09.2018 against the accused under Section 376D IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act and prosecutrix has been examined wherein she has retracted from her original version.
6. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix is living with parents of the petitioner and contently married with the petitioner and she had filed the present case under duress. Prosecutirx has also admitted her nikah with the petitioner. All the public witnesses have been examined and petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation.
7. It is lastly submitted that investigation in all respect have been completed and charge sheet has been filed and the material witnesses have been examined therefore, petitioner be, released on bail, in the interest of justice.
8. Ld. APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Petitioner has sexually assaulted the petitioner when she was minor. He has, therefore prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
9. I have considered the rival submissions. The present case FIR No. 1297/16 u/s. 376 IPC & 6 POCSO Act, PS Jamia Nagar, New Delhi was registered on 11.12.2016 on the statement of complainant/prosecutrix alleged to be aged about 15 years. She has alleged that her friend Saba had introduced her to petitioner Sajid and later on petitioner Sajid took her to a flat in Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, where he exploited the prosecutrix and made forceful intercourse with her and also recorded her video. He used that video to blackmail prosecutrix and threatened her that if she did not indulge in sexual activity with him, he will upload her recorded video on internet. She further alleged that petitioner Sajid also brought 3 other people along with him in the month of August and all of them raped her turn by turn. Thereafter, prosecutrix came to know that she has become pregnant and informed the aforesaid incident to her mother. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was got co
