Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Brijesh Sethi, J.
Ali Sher Saifi - Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 67 of 2020
Decided On : 22-01-2020
Anticipatory bail should be denied when serious allegations of sexual assault and illegal confinement exist, particularly if the accused is absconding.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 344, 376-D, 506, and 34 - Anticipatory bail application dismissed based on serious allegations of sexual assault, illegal confinement, and threats made to the prosecutrix by the petitioner and co-accused. The court found the evidence indicating coercion and lack of consent. (Paras 1-13)
(B) The court stated that anticipatory bail is not warranted when the accused is absconding and the allegations are grave. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner allegedly sexually assaulted the prosecutrix, made threats against her and her mother, and was involved in a conspiracy related to property disputes. Tan coerced the victim into a false marital arrangement.
Findings of Court:
Serious nature of the allegations necessitated a denial of anticipatory bail due to the petitioner's absconding status and the evidential implications of the victim's claims.
Issues: The primary issues included the credibility of the complaints filed against the petitioner, the context of the victim's allegations, and the evaluation of the accused's status during proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that given the grave nature of the accusations and the fact that the accused was absconding, the requirements for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied.
Result: Anticipatory bail application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of allegations made. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the false nature of fir. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and allegations. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. denial of anticipatory bail due to seriousness of allegations. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Brijesh Sethi, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. No. 1308/2020 (for filing additional documents).
Allowed.
Application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 67/2020
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner Ali Sher Saifi under section 438 Cr.P.C in FIR No. 422/19, u/s. 344/376-D//506/34 IPC
2. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR has registered on the written complaint dated 03.10.2019 of the prosecutrix/complainant in which she has alleged that she is living with her mother at her residence and she is helping her mother in her business. The mother of the prosecutrix came in contact with Naresh Kumar Pandit and it is alleged that Naresh Kumar Pandit starting influencing the mother of the prosecutrix to do some pooja, rituals etc. so that the departed soul of petitioner's father can rest in peace. Naresh Kumar Pandit introduced prosecutrix's mother to Roop Kishore Gupta @ Chhotu. Roop Kishore Gupta @ Chhotu introduced prosecutirx's mother to Bablu Yadav and the petitioner. It is further case of the prosecutrix that one day when prosecutrix's mother was not at home, the petitioner sexually assaulted the prosecutrix and threatened her that if she discloses this fact to anyone, then the petitioner alongwith Roop Kishore Gupta and Naresh Kumar Gupta will kill prosecutrix's mother.
3. In her complaint petitioner further submitted that on 17/18 May, 2019 Bablu Yadav @ Salim came to the house of prosecutrix alongwith the petitioner and committed rape with the prosecutrix and again gave her threat. It is also alleged that while committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, the petitioner and Bablu Yadav have made MMS of the said act and they threatened the prosecutrix and illegally confined her at flat no.263, Pocket B, Ground Floor, Narela.
4. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that the actual fact as to why the prosecutrix has lodged false FIR against accused persons is that an F.I.R. bearing No.415/2019 dated 29.09.2019 was lodged by wife of the co-accused Roop Kishore against the prosecutrix's mother and her servant for committing offences under section 328, 354-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Thus, as a counter blast, prosecutrix has lodged false FIR against the accused persons. It is submitted that on 25.05.2019, the prosecutrix in presence of her mother married co-accused Bablu Yadav and thereafter she started residing with the co-accused Bablu Yadav as her legally wedded wife. In the said marriage, the petitioner was one of the Witnesses. The prosecutrix lived with the co-accused Bablu Yadav as her legally wedded wife till 10.09.2019. It is submitted that the allegation of the prosecutrix that she was illegally confined by the co-accused Bablu Yadav and petitioner is baseless, mala fide and concocted. There is evidence on records to show that the prosecutrix married Bablu Yadav out of her free will/consent and in presence of her mother and without any threat or coercion. Original photographs of co-accused Bablu Yadav and prosecutrix, which show that they were legally and happily wedded, and the transcript of the telephone conversation between prosecutrix and her mother were filed by the co-accused Bablu Yadav before the Ld. Trial court alongwith his bail application which were taken into consideration by the Ld. Trail court, while granting regular bail to co-accused Bablu Yadav.
5. It is submitted that the reason for filing false FIR by the prosecutrix against the petitioner is that on 17.12.2018, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the prosecutrix's mother for purchasing the baseme
