Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Vikas Mittal – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of rape and molestation against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's observations on the gravity of allegations and ongoing investigations. (Para 3 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments regarding the belated fir and alleged fabrication. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. dismissal of the bail application. (Para 9) |
ORDER
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. By way of this order, I shall dispose of the present bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 314/2020 registered under Section 376 /328/354A/506/509/34 IPC at Police Station Dwarka South.
2. Briefly stated, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 05.08.2020, a PCR call regarding rape was received in Police Station and the above mentioned case was registered on the complaint of victim "V" aged about 28 years. In her complaint, she had levelled the allegations against the petitioner/accused for molestation & committing rape upon her in June 2017. She further disclosed that she had joined the Eldorado Events Company of petitioner in February, 2017. Petitioner used to take her in events meetings. One day in June 2017, petitioner called the victim
The seriousness of allegations and threats to the victim's safety are paramount in bail considerations, justifying denial when the applicant's personal circumstances do not outweigh these factors.
The court's refusal of bail reinforces that serious allegations of sexual offences require thorough examination at trial, negating claims of consensual relations based on prior friendships or financi....
The seriousness of the allegations and the pending testimony of the victim's parents were key factors in denying the bail application.
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.
The court granted bail considering prolonged custody, the completion of witness examination, and the absence of necessity for further detention despite the severity of allegations.
Anticipatory bail should not be denied unless there is imminent need for custodial interrogation, and delays in lodging FIR do not automatically negate the prosecution's case.
Accused may be granted bail when there are significant delays in trial, provided there is no risk of evidence tampering, despite serious accusations and improvements in witness testimony.
The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the totality of facts and circumstances, including the delay in filing the FIR, inconsistencies in the victim's allegations, and the pet....
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.
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
