Point of Law: Offence of Rape - Grant of Bail - Contents of status report and charge sheet prima-facie do not appear to support case of complainant - Previous Conviction/ Involvement Report SCRB, Delhi placed on record reveals that no other case is pending against petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.

1. Vide present petition, petitioner is seeking bail in FIR No. 302/2020, under Sections 376/376-D/323/506/109/34 IPC, registered at police station Farsh Bazar, Delhi.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in this case since 23.07.2020. The complainant of this FIR is none else than petitioner’s wife. The present petition has been filed on the ground that petitioner is innocent and the FIR in question is an outcome of matrimonial dispute between the parties.

3. The brief background of this case, as spelt out in the FIR in question, is that the marriage of complainant with one Paras, brother of petitioner, was solemnized on 06.12.2014. Since Paras had frequent quarrels with his parents, he committed suicide on 22.05.2015. Thereafter, with the consent of parents of both the sides, marriage of complainant was solemnized with petitioner herein on 11.06.2015.

4. The allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR in question are that petitioner and his parents forced her to enter into illicit relations with other men, whom petitioner used to bring home for money. The complainant has specifically named Praveen, Raghav, Dinesh and Deepak as the persons whom petitioner brought home and forced her to make physical relations with them on different occasions. The complainant has also alleged that petitioner forced her to make relations with Deepak on different occasions even though when she was pregnant. On one such occasion, petitioner made an obscene video of her and threatened that if she refused to do it, he will upload the same on You Tube and will also use this video to extort money from Deepak. It is also alleged that on 05.04.2020, Nikhil (petitioner), on the pretext of taking her and their son for outing, took them to Rudrapur, Uttrakhand and on their way their vehicle met with an accident. But thereafter, petitioner took her to the residence of one Dinesh Khanna, where four five friends of Nikhil made her drink alcohol and thereafter, made sexual relations with her one by one.

5. At the hearing learned counsel for petitioner submitted that marriage between petitioner and complainant was solemnized on 11.06.2015 and since complainant/wife is a quarrelsome lady, matrimonial differences arose between them. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no medical or scientific evidence/material available on record to connect petitioner with the alleged offence.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, which has not been disputed by the prosecution, that the persons named in the FIR, i.e. Deepak Jai and Praveen, have been granted bail by the trial court on 17.08.2020 and 20.09.2020 respectively. Moreover, co-accused Kishan Raghav and the mother of petitioner - Geeta Jain, have also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 07.10.2020 and 28.07.2020 respectively. Another co-accused Dinesh Khandelwal has been granted bail by this Court on 17.08.2020.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that since petitioner is married to respondent No. 2, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out and Sections 323/506/109/34 IPC are bailable offences and so, petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State opposed the present petition and submitted that charge sheet in this case has been filed and FSL report regarding mobile and laptop of petitioner is still awaited. Further submitted that statement of complainant in this case is yet to be recorded and if petitioner is released on bail, there is strong possibility of his threating the complainant.

9. A perusal of material placed on record reveals that in the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 while dismissing petitioner’s application for bail, the learned trial court has observed that complainant had difficulty in speaking and she was hard of hearing. Further observed that the Disability Certificate of complainant placed on record showed 60% disablement/impairment.

10. T