$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 14th AUGUST, 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:
+ BAIL APPLN. 2419/2023 SAHIL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. J.P. Singh, Mr. Arjun Gupta, Mr.
Sooraj Bhalla, Mr. Lalman Yadav, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Mr. Akash Khatri, Mr. Gautam Singh, Advocates.
versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State SI Neeti, PS Jahangir Puri Mr. Faraz Maqbool, Ms. Sana Juneja & Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail in FIR No.858/2021, dated 04.10.2021, registered at Police Station Jahangir Puri initially for offences under Sections 363 IPC which was later on converted to offences under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the present Petition, are that 04.10.2021 a complaint was registered by the mother of the Prosecutrix stating that her daughter, the Prosecutrix herein, aged about 17 years, left her house on 30.09.2021 at about 2:30 PM and since then she has not come back and the Complainant suspects that her daughter might have been lured by some unknown person. On the said complaint the present FIR was registered and the investigation was carried out. During investigation it was revealed that earlier also the Prosecutrix went missing from her home twice and in this regard FIR No. 219/2021 and FIR No. 444/2021 both under section 363 IPC were registered but later on the Prosecutrix returned back home. The investigation further revealed that the Prosecutrix was living with the Petitioner herein somewhere in Narela and on 18.12.2021 the Prosecutrix was found.
3. It is stated that before Doctors, the Prosecutrix gave a statement that she had gone with the Petitioner herein, who is her boyfriend, of her own free will and thereafter they got married and that now she is pregnant. In her statement it was further stated by the Prosecutrix that her family members were aware about her marriage with the Petitioner and her mother had told her that she will accept the marriage only if the Petitioner converts to Muslim religion but since the Petitioner refused to convert to Muslim religion, the mother of the Prosecutrix lodged the complaint against the Petitioner. It is stated that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C also, the Prosecutrix stated that she went to the house of the Petitioner on her own will and got married with the Petitioner and they lived together as husband and wife and established physical relations with the Petitioner with her own free will. It is stated that since the Prosecutrix was minor, Sections 366/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were added in the FIR and the Petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2021.
4. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the Prosecutrix has stated that about 2 months back she along with her friend had gone out of the house for eating Gole Gappas and while they were eating Gole Gappas, the Petitioner herein came there in an auto and took her to a room at Safiabad, Narela in the said auto and thereafter he committed rape on her. After completion of investigation, Charge-sheet has been filed.
5. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2024. He states that there is a change in the stand of the Prosecutrix between her statement given to the Doctors, her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein she has stated that she went with the Petitioner on her own free will and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C wherein a new story has been told that the Petitioner herein had taken the Prosecutrix forcefully. He further states that the Prosecutrix had went missing from her house on two earlier occasions as well and later on she has returned home and on both the occasions FIRs have been lodged by her mother. He states that charge-sheet has been filed and investigation is complete and there is no danger of the Petitioner tampering with evidence and, therefore, the Petitioner be released on bail.
7. Per contra, learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel appearing for the Prosecutrix vehemently opposes the present Petition contending that the Petitioner is accused of a very heinous offence. It is, therefore, stated that bail ought not be granted to the Petitioner herein.
8. Heard the Counsels for the Petitioner and the Prosecutrix and the learned APP for the State an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.