Discrepancies in the victim's statements and the factual position influenced the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.13 dated 10.01.2020 registered under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station Sector 56, Gurugram, District Gurugram.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of Ashish Gupta, he is residing in a flat and is having two children. The name of the elder son of the complainant is Aryan Gupta, who is aged about 15 years and is a student of class 10th. On the date of incident, at about 10:00 PM, one guard namely Vipin was on a duty and in his room, there was an electric heater and due to extreme cold weather, the son of the complainant namely Aryan Gupta, the victim came down to the ground at about 10:00 PM and went to the guard room where after 25-30 minutes, the petitioner Amit, who was working as a Bouncer also came in the guard room. After 10-15 minutes, the son of the complainant left the said place and when he reached to the 3rd floor, in the meantime, the petitioner also came there through lift and grabbed the hand of the victim Aryan Gupta and took him to 8th floor where he is having a rented room and thereafter, bolted the room from inside and by threatening the victim, did wrongful act with him forcefully. Thereafter, the son of the complainant managed to escape by unbolting the door and came to his house and informed the incident. The complainant, therefore, called the police and the victim was taken to the Civil Hospital, Gurugram and his medical examination was conducted.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that as per the MLR, the following observations was made:-

'Brought by Police for medical examination Local examination: There is no external injury seen around the buttocks and around the anal. No tear seen in anal region around sphincter bone appears to be normal. No any discharge appear from anal region.

Advice Surgeon opinion.'

4. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that, therefore, the victim was taken before the Judicial Magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein he has stated that the petitioner by putting off his clothes tried to do wrongful act repeatedly and he started crying and thereafter, the petitioner caught hold of his mouth and in the meantime, he opened the door and came to his house. It is further argued that there is a variation in the FIR version and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as in the FIR it was stated that a wrong act was done to the victim whereas in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is stated that an attempt was made.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the statement of the guard namely Vipin, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein it has come that when the victim was sitting in his cabin, the father of the victim i.e. the complainant Ashish Gupta came in a car and after parking the same went upstairs through lift. It is further stated by the guard that after some time, the victim and his father came down and told that the Bouncer has putt off the clothes of his son and he informed the incident to the Supervisor.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that, in fact, as per the own version of the victim, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he had some issue with his mother, who told the victim that he will not come to home unless his father came back to home and therefore, on account of something, which has happened in their own family, the present FIR has been registered. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already left the Society and is no more residing in the same.

7. Counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Narinder and the on the basis of the MLR and the statement of the victim as well as the Guard recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has not disputed the factu