Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Yashpal Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State – Respondent
Bail Application No. 4089 of 2021
Decided On : 24-12-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376/328/506 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Criminal Intimidation and Rape - Demands of money - Grant of anticipatory bail - Allegations against applicant are wholly false and that relations between the applicant and the prosecutrix, if any, were wholly consensual, that prosecutrix indulged in sexual relations with applicant despite being a married woman and that it was on insistence of prosecutrix that she became pregnant with applicant - Complaint she alleged that applicant working in PNB as a Clerk, had sexually assaulted her and that she was three (3) months in family way - As per prosecution version, complainant had stated through her complaint that in 2018 she went to PNB Khanpur due to some account related problems, where complainant met applicant who provided his mobile number for future reference and thereafter they frequently called each other and in 2018, applicant/accused came to the complainant's house for collection of some documents and offered some sweets to the complainant whereafter the complainant became unconscious and when she regained her consciousness she found herself nude and found applicant/accused lying with her on the bed and watching a video on his mobile phone and threatened complainant that if she told anything to anyone he would kill her husband.
Finding of the Court:
Prosecutrix whilst opposing the bail application of applicant submitted that release of applicant on bail would result into applicant harassing her as he had been torturing her repeatedly, inter-alia, submitted that she had been giving repeated information to Investigation Officers of case i.e. to the Investigation Officer in present case as well as to Investigating Officer of application before learned Trial Court that persons known to her have been receiving threats in relation to present case on behalf of applicant qua which Investigation Officer of the case, SI Shalu in reply to a specific Court query submitted that no written complaint had been given to her by prosecutrix though the Investigation Officer had advised her to give the same, if she so wanted. The Investigation Officer inter-alia stated that complaint that prosecutrix had made to her was to the effect that there were telephone calls that were received by the relatives of the prosecutrix from the side of applicant, that child conceived by prosecutrix was that of applicant and not of her spouse - Statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, the prosecutrix has stated that she was not agreeable to the applicant divorcing his wife and marrying her and continuation of pregnancy by prosecutrix prima facie lend credence to the contentions raised by the applicant that relations between applicant that prosecutrix even after first alleged incident of rape which too is refuted, continued to be without any duress or force - There is no mention in the statement of prosecutrix of applicant and prosecutrix having checked in any hotel as put forth by status report. In the circumstances, it is considered appropriate to allow applicant to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in facts and circumstances of the case subject to his filing a bail bond.
Result: Application is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The applicant, vide the present application seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No. 413/2021, P.S. Tigri under Sections 376/328/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that the allegations levelled against the applicant are wholly false and that the relations between the applicant and the prosecutrix, if any, were wholly consensual, that the prosecutrix indulged in sexual relations with the applicant despite being a married woman and that it was on the insistence of the prosecutrix that she became pregnant with the applicant.
2. The applicant has further submitted that after the pregnancy, the prosecutrix started making demands of money from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs and also stated that if the applicant did not pay the amount to her, she would implicate him in a false case and get him removed from his Government job.
3. Notice of the application was issued to the State with directions to the State to submit the copy of the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 of the prosecutrix.
4. The prosecutrix too joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing on 02.12.2021 and made her submissions.
5. As per the status report submitted by the State dated 21.11.2021 under the signatures of Inspector Rajnish Kumar, SHO, PS Tigri, a complaint was received at PS Tigri from the complainant in relation to a sexual assault with a lady named ‘D’ wife of ‘X’ and in her complaint she alleged that the applicant working in PNB as a Clerk, had sexually assaulted her and that she was three (3) months in the family way. As per the prosecution version, the complainant had stated through her complaint that in 2018 she went to PNB Khanpur due to some account related problems, where the complainant met the applicant who provided his mobile number for future reference and thereafter they frequently called each other and in 2018, the applicant/accused came to the complainant's house for collection of some documents and offered some sweets to the complainant whereafter the complainant became unconscious and when she regained her consciousness she found herself nude and found the applicant/accused lying with her on the bed and watching a video on his mobile phone and threatened the complainant that if she told anything to anyone he would kill her husband.
6. As per the status report put forth, in March 2021, according to the complainant, she and the applicant left their homes and started living together at Mayur Vihar in a rented accommodation and the applicant/accused had stated that he would take a divorce and would marry her soon but now since the complainant had become pregnant, the applicant/accused was not responding to her calls and was asking her to abort her three (3) months pregnancy.
7. As per the said status report, during the course of the investigation on 16.03.2021, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted and during the medical examination, no exhibits were seized as the incident was very old and that the UPT test of the prosecutrix was conducted which indicated that she was three months in the family way. The statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 of the prosecutrix was also recorded as submitted by the State.
8. It is further submitted through the status report dated 21.11.2021 that during the course of the investigation conducted at PNB, Khanpur, New Delhi, it was found that Account No. 1514000100989327 belonging to the complainant ‘D’ was opened on 12.09.2012 and that, the KYC of the complainant's account was done at the time of opening of the same.
9. Through the said status report dated 21.11.2021, the State has further stated to the effect that the hotel records regarding the stay of the complainant and the applicant/accused were collected from Hotel Vinayak Inn, Pahad Ganj and according to the Hotel records, in December 2018, the complainant and the applicant/accused went to the hotel for one day and the hotel records
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
