SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 5781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Krishan Gaba - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT Of Delhi) & Anr. - Respondents
Bail Appln. 847 of 2023
Decided On : 09-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
Dr. Adish C. Aggarwala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Ahuja, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Bhatia, Advocate, Mr. Amish Aggarwala, Advocate, Mr. Kuldeep Hauhari, Advocate, Mr. Anubhav Tyagi, Advocate, Ms. Ekta Mudgil, Advocate, Ms. Alka Nupur Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vedansh Lohani, Advocate, Mr. Hitanshu, Advocate, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Antra Mishra, Advocate and Mr. Nishant Sharma Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for the State with SI Sumedha, Advocate, Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate and Mr. Akshaya Kaushik, Advocate, for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
Consensual nature of the relationship, lack of evidence for alleged sexual acts, and cooperation with the investigation are crucial factors in granting anticipatory bail in rape allegations.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Rape Allegations - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner after considering the consensual nature of the relationship, the complainant's false divorce decree, the lack of evidence for the alleged sexual acts, and the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed for anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of rape and threats made by the complainant, who claimed that the petitioner established forceful physical relations with her and threatened to publicize her nude photographs.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant appeared consensual, as reflected in their text messages, and noted the complainant's production of a false divorce decree. It also observed that the petitioner had joined the investigation and that there was no evidence to substantiate the complainant's allegations of threats on a specific date.

Issues: The issues involved the consensual nature of the relationship, the complainant's credibility, the lack of evidence for the alleged sexual acts, and the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner based on the consensual nature of the relationship, the lack of evidence for the alleged sexual acts, and the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail, ordering his release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, and directing him to join the investigation when called by the Investigating Officer.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 260/2023 U/s 376/377/504 IPC registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the allegations made by the prosecutrix are that the prosecutrix and the petitioner were known to each other for quite some time and they became good friends. As per the allegations, the petitioner took the prosecutrix into confidence saying that he would marry her. On 17.06.2021, petitioner took the prosecutrix to Arya Samaj Temple, Mori Gate, Delhi for marriage and thereafter they started living together. During this period, petitioner established forceful physical relations with the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix made efforts to persuade the petitioner to get the marriage registered but the petitioner kept on delaying the same.

3. It is further alleged by the prosecutrix that the petitioner with the help of his friend, took her nude photographs and threatened her to have physical relations with him and his friend or they would publicize her nude photographs. Thereafter the petitioner and his friend established physical relations with the prosecutrix under the threat of publicizing her nude photographs. The prosecutrix got pregnant but the petitioner forcibly gave her abortion drugs. In the second month of the year 2023, the petitioner started avoiding the prosecutrix.

4. I have heard the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant, perused the Status Report and also perused the records of this case.

5. It is submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that during the initial stage of relationship, the complainant/prosecutrix had not informed the petitioner that she was already married and had a grown up child and this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 12.01.2021, when she had filed her first complaint against the petitioner at police Station Seemapuri. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that the said complaint was withdrawn by the complainant/prosecutrix on 13.01.2021 in the presence of her husband by giving the statement that since she had a fight with the petitioner, therefore, she filed the said complaint. It is further submitted that on 12.09.2021 the complainant/prosecutrix texted to the petitioner that she had made the allegations of rape on the asking of some friend. It is further submitted that since the complainant/prosecutrix is a married woman so there was no question of her marriage with the petitioner and the complainant/prosecutrix had shared her divorce decree dated 08.03.2021 in H.M.A. No. 708/2021 with the petitioner on WhatsAPP and when the petitioner obtained the certified copy of H.M.A. No. 708/2021, the same was found to be of some other party and not of the complainant.

6. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his mobile phone has already been seized and deposited in the Malkhana.

7. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the state assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued on the lines of the Status Report and has submitted that the complainant/prosecutrix has supported her version even in her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ld. counsel for the victim/complainant has submitted that the allegations are serious in nature and on the pretext of marriage the petitioner had raped the complainant/prosecutrix and subsequently co-accused who is the friend of the petitioner also raped the complainant/prosecutrix. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the complainant has been receiving threats from the petitioner and she had lodged a complaint with P.S. Shalimar Bagh.

8. In the instant case, the complainant/prosecutrix is a married lady with a grown up child which is not disputed. The relationship between the petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top