The seriousness of the offence, cooperation with the investigation, and the need for custodial interrogation when the accused does not provide necessary information.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C is for the grant of bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in FIR No. 125/2021 dated 16.05.2021, registered at Police Station Civil Lines for offences under Sections 376/506 IPC.

2. Shorn of details, the facts, leading to the instant bail application, are as under:

a) The instant FIR was registered on the statement of the prosecutrix wherein she stated that she knew the petitioner. It is stated that she and her husband deal in ready-made garments. It is stated that they have a shop in Gandhi Nagar and the petitioner also owns a shop in Gandhinagar. It is stated that in September, 2019 the petitioner herein invited the prosecutrix for dinner and took her to a restaurant called Boa Village. It is stated that after dinner the prosecutrix went with the petitioner in his car. It is stated that the petitioner herein offered her beer and they were driving for some time. It is stated that after a while the petitioner took the prosecutrix to Bonta Park and parked the car outside the park. It is stated that the petitioner forcefully made physical relations with the prosecutrix. It is stated the prosecutrix could not protest because she was feeling dizzy after consuming beer. It is stated that after the incident the petitioner dropped the prosecutrix to her house and showed her obscene photos, that he had clicked on his phone and threatened the prosecutrix that if she told anyone about the incident, he would send the pictures to her husband and would circulate them in the market as well. It is stated that in February 2020, the petitioner asked the prosecutrix to meet him again. It is stated that out of fear the prosecutrix went to meet him. It is stated that the petitioner took the prosecutrix to a flat where he again physically forced himself on her. It is stated that thereafter due to lockdown, the petitioner and the prosecutrix were not in touch each other. It is stated that in December 2020 the petitioner once again forcefully made physical relations with the prosecutrix. It is stated that the petitioner is threatening the prosecutrix that he will send her obscene pictures to her husband and he is forcing the prosecutrix to meet him and, therefore, the instant FIR was registered.

b) The petitioner filed an application, being Bail Application No. 1341/2021, before the Sessions Court, seeking anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Session Judge -05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, considering the gravity of offence and the nature of allegations against the petitioner and considering the fact that threats are being extended to the prosecutrix, dismissed the said application vide order dated 07.06.2021. c) The petitioner has thereafter approached this Court by filing the instant application.

3. In the petition, it is contended that the petitioner conducts a chit fund business and the husband of the victim was a member of the chit business. It is stated that the husband of the prosecutrix has given a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioner. It is contended that the instant FIR was lodged just to put pressure on the petitioner so that he could not encash the said cheque. A copy of the cheque bearing No.000129, dated 18.05.2021, drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank and signed by the husband of the prosecutrix is annexed with the petition. Noting the said contention, notice was issued by this Court on 14.06.2021 and interim protection was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and join investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer.

4. On 07.07.2021, this Court directed the Investigating Officer to verify whether husband of prosecutrix was a part of any kitty/Committee formed by the petitioner and whether any amount was received/paid by him and the matter was adjourned to 27.07.2021.

5. Status Report along with the statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been