The court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail is influenced by the gravity of the alleged offences and the likelihood of repeated commission by the accused.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - These petitions have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of bail to the Petitioners in the event of arrest in FIR No. 53/2022 dated 11.01.2022 registered at Police Station Khyala for offences under Sections 376/376(2)(n)/323/342/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC') and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences act, 2012 (hereinafter, 'POCSO').

2. The facts, in brief, leading up to the filing of both the petitions are as follows:

a) It is stated that the prosecutrix is a sales girl at a jewellery shop in Karol Bagh. She has been separated from her husband since 2012, however, she has been residing at a flat in Uttam Nagar which is the name of her husband.

b) On 10.03.2019, while the prosecutrix was at her job, she received a call from a friend of her husband, Ranjit Singh Chauhan (Petitioner in BaIL aPPLN. 442/2022) who informed her that both her children - a son of 18 years of age, and a daughter of 15 years of age - were with him and he asked her to come home quickly. The prosecutrix rushed home to find Ranjit Singh, along with four persons, namely Vinay Bhasin, Sunil Kumar Sheela, Raghu Bansal and Shamsher Singh.

c) It is stated that Ranjit Singh asked the prosecutrix to vacate the home, and when she refused to do so, he threatened to harm her children who had allegedly been held captive by him and were in his car which was parked outside the home. Out of fear, the prosecutrix silently went and sat in the same vehicle, and all three were taken to a house in Shyam Nagar.

d) It is stated that Ranjit Singh kept the prosecutrix and her children in that house till 30.05.2019. He portrayed to the landlord that they were his family. He would instruct some of his men to keep an eye on the prosecutrix and her children, and would tell them to take the children outside the house. When the children were taking outside the house, Ranjit Singh would repeatedly rape the prosecutrix. It is stated that when the landlord asked Ranjit Singh to pay the rent, he quarrelled with him and forced the prosecutrix to file a complaint against the landlord in Police Station Tilak Nagar. a compromise was executed between the landlord and Ranjit Singh thereafter and the house at Shyam Nagar was vacated.

e) It is stated that the prosecutrix and her children were then shifted to a house in ashok Nagar and were kept there till 28.09.2019, and the prosecutrix was raped at this house repeatedly as well by Ranjit Singh. Similar quarrels arose with the landlady of that house and it had to be vacated.

f) The prosecutrix was then taken to a house in Shivaji Enclave and kept there till 22.02.2020. It is stated that the house belonged to one Menka Chaturvedi, and that in this house, Gaurav Malik (Petitioner in BaIL aPPLN. 442/2022) threatened the prosecutrix to have sexual relations with him. He would further beat the prosecutrix in order to make the Shivaji Enclave house in his and Ranjit Singh's name.

g) It is stated that the daughter of the prosecutrix would be forced to visit the gym and that the Ranjit Singh would then rape her as well, along with one Sachin Demble @ Chintu and one Rameshwar Dass, who would also rape the daughter of the prosecutrix at a hotel in Vikas Puri and a factory in Mayapuri. The daughter was threatened with being shot if she dared to reveal these incidents to her mother and her brother. Ranjit Singh had also snatched the phones of the prosecutrix and her children.

h) It is stated that the prosecutrix escaped Ranjit Singh and gave a compliant at P.S. Rajouri Garden and then it was sent to P.S. Tilak Nagar and that after that, it was sent to P.S. Khyala. However, no action was taken. The prosecutrix was later called to P.S. Khyala and then her statement was taken, on the basis of which the instant FIR was registered.

i) anticipatory bail filed by the Petitioner in BaIL aPPLN. 401/2022 before the Ld. Trial Court was dismissed vide Order dated 28.01.2022. ant