BAIL APPLN. 646/2018 Page 1 of 3

$~7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

DECIDED ON : 7^th MAY, 2018

+

BAIL APPLN. 646/2018 & CRL.M.A.No.5503/2018

JIMBLE MATHEW

..... Petitioner

Through :

Mr.Rohit Bharadwaj, Advocate.

Versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through :

Ms.Radhika Kolluru, APP with SI Seema,

PS New Friends Colony.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)

1.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR

No.415/2016 registered under Section 376 IPC at PS New Friends

Colony. Status report is on record.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. Petitioner’s counsel urged that a false FIR has been

lodged by the prosecutrix. Both the petitioner and the prosecutrix

were acquainted with each other and lived consensually in a live-in-

relationship. Subsequently, the complainant started picking up

quarrels and committed physical and mental torture to the petitioner.

The complainant suspected the petitioner and used to regularly check

his phone / call details and messages. The petitioner, thereafter,

BAIL APPLN. 646/2018 Page 2 of 3

decided to end the relationship and it was duly conveyed to the

prosecutrix. She, thereafter, started coercing the petitioner to continue

with the relationship and threatened him with dire consequences.

Counsel further urged that owing to ill health, the petitioner planned to

go to Kerala but was not allowed to do so. Before he could reach his

home town, the victim intercepted him at Mangalore and threatened

him to alight. He was made to stay with her for 3 or 4 days. After the

petitioner recovered from ill-health, he left for abroad on getting

employment there.

3.

Learned APP opposed the grant of bail as there are

serious allegations against the petitioner.

4.

On perusal of the complaint lodged by the victim, it

reveals that she has levelled serious allegations against the petitioner

whereby physical relations were established several times with her on

the promise to marry. Efforts were made between the families to

perform the marriage. Certain negotiations also took place. Before

the marriage could be finalized, the prosecutrix came to know that the

petitioner’s whereabouts were not known. She felt cheated and

defrauded by the petitioner in collusion with her parents and relatives.

5.

The petitioner is presently out of India. Learned Trial

Court had granted interim protection to the petitioner to enable him to

come to India and to join the investigation. Despite availing

protection, the petitioner did not bother to join the investigation.

Consequently, by an order dated 31.05.2017, the interim protection

granted to the petitioner was withdrawn.

BAIL APPLN. 646/2018 Page 3 of 3

6.

Earlier proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were

initiated and the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender.

However, the revisional court set aside the said order on 31.01.2018.

The application filed for anticipatory bail, thereafter, was dismissed on

01.03.2018.

7.

Status report reveals that Look-Out Circular has already

been opened against the petitioner with the approval of the competent

authority on 27.02.2018.

8.

Since, there are serious allegations against the petitioner

whereby he allegedly sexually exploited a young lady of 27 years of

age and left her in lurch and the fact that despite interim protection, he

did not return to India to join the investigation, it is not a case for

grant of anticipatory bail; the bail application is dismissed.

9.

Observations in the order shall have no impact on merits

of the case.

10.

Pending application also stands disposed of.

(S.P.GARG)

JUDGE