$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 04.04.2024 Pronounced on: 15.04.2024 + BAIL APPLN. 1574/2023 RAVI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Shailendra Babbar, Advocate.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Raghuvinder Verma, APP for State with SI Shweta, Police Station Tilak Nagar.

Mr Ajay Kumar and Ms Muskan Gupta, Advocates for complainant (DHCLSC).

Mr Hemant Singh and Ms Urvashi Jain, Advocate for prosecutrix.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present application has been filed seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No.0744/2020 under Sections 376(2)(n)/377/323/506 IPC registered at PS Tilak Nagar.

2. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the FIR is that the prosecutrix met the petitioner in the year 2019 at the time of Ganpati Visarjan and they became friends and started talking to each other over the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH BAILAPPLN.1574/2023 Page1of7 telephone. Fifteen days prior to Holi in March, 2020, the petitioner called the prosecutrix at the residence of his friend Deepanshu, where the petitioner made the prosecutrix to drink beer and, thereafter, the petitioner forcibly established physical relations with her. It is alleged that the petitioner also prepared a video and started blackmailing the prosecutrix. The petitioner also made a promise to prosecutrix to marry her, however, later on it came to the notice of the prosecutrix that the petitioner is married and under the threat that the petitioner will publish the video of the prosecutrix, he repeatedly established physical relations with her and the last such incident happened on 08.10.2020 at the residence of the prosecutrix. It is further alleged that the petitioner refused to marry the prosecutrix. This led to the filing of complaint by the petitioner which culminated into the aforesaid FIR. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 21.10.2020.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the complaint, as well as, to the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded on 09.12.2022, to contend that in the complaint it has been mentioned that the prosecutrix met the petitioner in the year 2019 on the occasion of Ganpati Visarjan whereas in the testimony recorded on

09.12.2022 she has stated that she had met the petitioner in the year 2020.

4. He submits that the festival of Ganpati Visarjan was in the month of September in the year 2020 and the FIR has been registered in October 2020, which belies the version of the prosecution that in March, 2020 approximately 15 days prior to Holi the petitioner had established physical relations with the prosecutrix at the residence of his friend, namely, Deepanshu.

5. He further invites the attention of the Court to the cross-examination Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH BAILAPPLN.1574/2023 Page2of7 of the prosecutrix conducted on 19.01.2023, to contend that in response to a specific question put to her, the prosecutrix has stated that she met the petitioner on the occasion of Ganpati Visarjan in the year mentioned by her in the statement, the petitioner responded to the same in affirmative. The question put to the prosecutrix and the answer thereto reads as under:-

“Q. I put it to you that as you have stated in your examination in chief dated 09.12.2022 that you met accused Ravi on the occasion of Ganesh Chaturthi in the year mentioned by you in that statement, it is correct that you did not meet him prior thereto. What do you have to say?

Ans. Yes. I only knew him that he was residing in the neighbourhood area. Wo DJ-VJ ka kaam karta tha uss karan usko bulaya jata tha, mai usko itna hi janti thi.”

6. The learned counsel further submits that 4 CDs were placed on record by the petitioner and during her cross-examination, the prosecutrix was confronted with the said CDs and she admitted that the house which is seen in the said videos is a residence of one d