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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Sandeep Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 603 of 2021
Decided On : 22-07-2021




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.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - The applicant seeks bail concerning FIR No. 292/2020 involving serious allegations of sexual offenses, including rape and blackmail. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and the charge sheet has been filed without arrest. Significant delay in the FIR's registration noted, but not deemed fatal. The court emphasizes the balance between gravitas of allegations and personal liberty, referencing the principle from Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

(B) Delay in lodging FIR - While the six-year delay in lodging the FIR presents concerns, its impact on prosecution will be evaluated at trial, as it is not always fatal in sexual offense cases. (Para 8)

(C) Conditions for bail - Bail granted upon personal bond and specified conditions aimed at preventing tampering with evidence and witness intimidation, preserving victim's safety. (Para 13)

Table of Content
1. details of the alleged crime and circumstances. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's observations on the gravity of allegations and bail precedents. (Para 4 , 11 , 12)
3. arguments regarding the delay in fir and evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. conditions for granting bail. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 292/2020, dated 16.10.2020 under Section 376 /328/506 IPC registered at P.S. Patparganj, Industrial Area, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on 16/10/2020, victim/complainant came to PS Patparganj Industrial Area, and submitted a hand written complaint in which she stated that she used to live with her parents in Mandawali, Delhi. Her father was in Delhi Police. In May-June 2014, she along with her parents had gone to Shrinagar for LTC vacations and during this tour she came in contact with accused Sandeep (hereinafter called as "petitioner"), who was also on the same LTC tour with his family. Petitioner was also from Delhi Police. During this LTC tour petitioner became familiar with her family and he used to call her sister". Petitioner also obtained her mobile phone number by making a 'missed call' on his phone number from her mobile phone number. After return from LTC tour petitioner used to make phone calls on her phone and during one of such phone call conversation petitioner told her that his wife and daughter wants to meet her. Petitioner fixed that meeting at 'Akash Hotel located in Patparganj area. Petitoner's daughter also talked to her and told 'Bua aap aa jao'. After that petitioner told her to go to a particular room at 'Akash Hotel'. As per phone conversation she reached that particular room where only petitioner was present and he bolted the room from inside. When she asked petitioner about the absence of his wife and daughter he told that they are down stairs. Petitioner offered cold drink to her and after that complainant became unconscious. During her unconsciousness petitioner raped her. He also took nude photographs and video of complainant. After 3-4 Hours she re-gained consciousness but by that time petitioner had again put on her clothes. After some days petitioner again called her and asked her to come to meet him but she refused. Upon this petitioner threatened her either to come to meet him or he will put her objectionable photographs and videos on 'net'. Under these circumstances she agreed to meet petitioner and when she went to meet him, he showed her the objectionable photographs and videos and again raped her at the same place i.e. Akash Hotel. As per complaint similar incidents took place with complainant about 10-15 times.

3. In 2016 complainant got married to 'S' and complainant asked petitioner to now delete her objectionable photographs and videos but he again threatened & blackmailed her to show those photographs and videos to her husband and in-laws and even after marriage petitioner made sexual relations with complainant. Petitioner even sent those objectionable photographs on the mobile phone of complainant but he deleted those photographs by adopting the process of 'delete everyone' on whatsapp. Finally, finding no way out; complainant shared these facts with her husband and lodged present complaint for necessary legal action against petitioner. Accordingly, the present case U/s 376/328/506 IPC was registered.

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

5. It is submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay of 6 years in lodging the FIR as the alleged incident took place in the year 2014 and the FIR has been registered in the year 2020. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that the compl

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