BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019 Page 1 of 6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : 11.09.2019

%

Pronounced on : 16.09.2019

+

BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019

ROHIT SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Monika Arora and Mr.

Kushal Kumar, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghei, APP

for the State with Inspector

Rajesh Kumar, P.S. Rajender

Nagar, New Delhi.

Mr.

Maninder

Singh,

Mr.

Dinhar Takiar, Mr. Sarthak

Garg, Mr. Sankalp Kohli, Ms.

Aekta Vats and Mr. Vikram

Kalra

Advocates

for

the

complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

O R D E R

BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019 & CRL.M.(Bail) 1061/2019

1. This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C read with

Section 482 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.

225/18 U/s 498A/406/354/506/511/34 IPC registered at Police

Station-Rajinder Nagar, Delhi.

BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019 Page 2 of 6

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 06.12.2018, the

present FIR was registered at PS Rajinder Nagar, Delhi on the basis

of the complaint of the complainant in which she had levelled

allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty against the petitioner as

well as his entire family. On 10.12.2018, statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C.

of the complainant was recorded in which she alleged that petitioner

used to threaten her by showing gun for bringing more dowry and he

also used to show her porn movies against her will and asked her to do

as shown in porn movies and had sex forcefully. The complainant

also made allegations of sexual harassment against her bother-in-law

and father-in-law. According to her statement offence u/s 354 IPC was

fond to be made out. However, in her initial complaint, the

complainant had stated about attempt of sexual assault. Therefore,

initially, the case was registered under section 354/511 IPC.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. It is argued by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the

allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and he has been

falsely implicated. It is further urged by the counsel that the

photographs given by the complainant are of the wedding and nothing

has been placed on record by the complainant showing that the

petitioner owns the said pistol or it was kept in his house. It is further

argued by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not

the owner of the pistol and the same belongs to his friend Abhimanyu

Chaudhary who had brought pistol and guns himself in the wedding

just to fire in air and the petitioner had just held the pistol in his hand

BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019 Page 3 of 6

to get his picture clicked. It is further urged by the counsel that the

allegations of unnatural sex by the petitioner and the allegations of

demand of dowry against the petitioner are false. It is further urged by

the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the allegation of threatening

with an firearm by the petitioner is an afterthought. It is further urged

by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is joining and

co-operating in the investigation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has

relied upon H.B. Chaturvedi Vs. CBI, 2010 (3) JCC 2109, State of

Rajasthan V. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308 and Arnesh Kumar Vs.

State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, Udit Raj Poonia Vs. State of

NCTD(II (2017) CCR 133 (Del.)) and Court on its own motion Vs.

CBI (109 (2003) DLT 494), Social Action Forum for Manav

Adhikar and another Vs.Union of India Ministry of Law and

Justice and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No 73 of 2015 with Criminal

Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of

2017 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on September 14, 2018

and prayed for grant