Back
YOGESH KHANNA
Suhail Ahmed @ Arhaan – Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Yogesh Khanna, J. - This petition is filed for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.127/2020, under Sections 376/506/509/342/323/34 IPC registered at PS Jama Masjid, Delhi.
2. The applicant is in judicial custody since 05.07.2020.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner there are material improvements in the statements of the prosecutrix i.e. in her complaint as also in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is alleged in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she has denied the place of incident of two dates.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says the incident of rape, as per the complaint was on 17.07.2016; second one was on 18.12.2016; third was July, 2019 and lastly on 27.02.2020. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that all along in the compliant the prosecutrix has been saying he committed rape upon the prosecutrix on pretext to marry but whereas in her MLC at page 131 of the paper book she gave the history she was raped on 19.07.2016 in Delhi at hotel Greenland but thereafter she had consensual sex for four years.
5. Further it is submitted even despite the petitioner being inside jail, she has been calling the brother-in-law o
The delay in filing the FIR and the conduct of the complainant can raise doubts about the credibility of the allegations in cases of sexual offenses.
The significance of delay in filing the FIR, lack of supporting evidence, and voluntary actions of the complainant and the accused and his family are crucial factors in considering bail applications ....
The court held that a conviction for rape is unsafe solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix when there is significant delay in reporting and lack of corroborative evidence.
The court granted bail to the accused/applicant considering the prosecutrix's inconsistent testimony and the circumstances surrounding their marriage, highlighting that allegations should not solely ....
The presumption of innocence, the sufficiency of evidence, and the purpose of pre-trial incarceration were central to the court's decision in granting bail.
The judgment emphasizes the nuanced consideration of consent, the impact of emotional exploitation on consent, and the distinction between consenting to a situation and consenting to sexual liaison.
The court ruled that delays in filing an FIR and lack of medical evidence may undermine the credibility of serious allegations, potentially influencing the decision on bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evaluating the evidentiary value of the prosecutrix's statement for the purpose of granting bail, and the court's authority to ta....
Point of Law : Court does not mitigate allegations made by prosecutrix against petitioner in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, and first statement given to police.
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
