Anil Nirwan v. The State

Judgment delivered on N. 2188/2023 AN ..... Through: Dr L. S. Chaudhary an Singh, Advocates. versus CT OF DELHI ..... Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, AP SI Komal PS Maidan G Mr. Vaibhav Dubey, Kaistha and Mr. Advocates for R-2. MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGMENT N, J. etition has been filed seeking regular ba 022 under Sections 376/420 IPC register the prosecution as borne out from the e petitioner / accused on 25.12.2020 o came good friends and eventually fell in petitioner revealed the complainant ab neering degree from IIT Kharagpur, hi DELHI : 03.01.2024 Petitioner nd Mr. Karanveer Respondent PP for State with Garhi. Mr. Pradyuman Shubham Jain, ail in connection red at PS Maidan FIR is that the on a dating App love. It is further bout his higher is double master from U.K. and New London.

¶3They planned

05.01.2021 the petiti hospitalisation and 25,000/- as loan with

¶4It is further a

01.02.2021 and the c at AIRBNB at Kish complainant booked the petitioner initiate long companionship

¶5It is further al was also present in further the case of th them shifted to AIRB and had repeated sex

¶6It is alleged complainant in Del intercourse with th companionship.

¶7It is also alleg Crore to the petitione

¶8The learned co the complainant w complainant met on w Zealand and further of Ph.D from d to meet physically in Delhi on 06.0 ioner informed that he was down with m asked the complainant to pay him an h promise to return the same after April, 2 alleged in the FIR that the petitioner ca complainant picked him from the Airport han Garh to stay. After dropping the lu d another cab to bring the petitioner to h ed sexual contact with her on the pretext and had sexual intercourse with her. lleged that at that time the flat mate of n the house. Thereafter, the petitioner w he prosecution that on the same day in the BNB at Kishan Garh and stayed there fo x. that on 04.09.2021, the petitioner ag lhi and stayed in her flat and again he complainant on the pretext of mar ged that the complainant has given an am er for his treatment. ounsel for the petitioner submits that no p was made by the petitioner. The pet n a dating App and not on a matrim Kings College,

01.2021, but on malaria and need n amount of Rs. 2021. ame to Delhi on t and they arrived uggage there, the her house, where t of marriage and the complainant went away. It is e evening, both of or next four days gain visited the he had sexual rriage and long mount of Rs. 1.2 promise to marry titioner and the monial App. The allegation of false pr

¶9He invites the prosecutrix who was prosecutrix herself through WhatsApp. submits that the pros that the petitioner is

01.02.2021. Therefo relations, which wer

01.02.2021, or there education and other c

¶10Insofar as the the complainant wer the FSL, he invites t prosecutrix, to conte and videos were prep

¶11As regard the of the learned cou inducement which is IPC. He submits th further submits that petitioner was utilize prosecutrix.

¶12He further sub Rs. 25,000/- was p

11.01.2021 and in romise of marriage is only an afterthought e attention of the court to the cross exa s examined by the prosecution as PW-1 to has admitted sending erotic stories t Further, referring to the cross examinat secutrix has admitted that she came to kno only a B.Sc. Graduate with no Ph.D. et re, there is no substance in the allegatio re established by the petitioner with the eafter, were under the misconception of credentials. allegation that many obscene photograp re recovered from the mobile phone of the attention of the court to the cross ex end that she herself has admitted that s pared with her consent. allegation of cheating are concerned, it nsel for the petitioner that there is n s a necessary ingredient for the offence un hat every money transaction cannot be the money which was paid by the com ed for the purpose of hotel bookings etc. bmits that in the FIR, it has been alleged t paid by the complainant to the petitio the event the said amount was not t. amination of the o contend that the to the petitioner tion of PW-1, he ow about the fact tc. as early as on on that the sexual e complainant on f the petitioner's phs and videos of the petitioner by xamination of the uch photographs is the contention no allegation of nder Section 420 e a cheating. He mplainant to the as desired by the that an amount of oner as loan on returned by the petitioner, there wa payments to the petit were made by the co

¶13As regard th respondent to send th medical papers, he i contend that no docu from the devices seiz

¶14He submits th charge sheet has b therefore, the custod sheet the prosecution witnesses have been one. The antecedent Court to enlarge the p

¶15Per contra, th counsel for the comp submits that the pet medical condition, o amount to the petitio

¶16He submits th 164 CrPC, as well consistent. The alleg flat mate of the prose

¶17I have heard th the State, as well as, as no occasion for the complainant t tioner. He submits that this itself shows t omplainant to the petitioner voluntarily. he allegation that the petitioner had he said money for his treatment on the ba invites the attention of the Court to the ument related to medical treatment was f zed from the petitioner / accused. hat the petitioner is in custody since 13. been filed and the prosecutrix also st dy of the petitioner is no more require n has cited as many as 18 witnesses and examined, therefore, the trial is going to ts of the petitioner are also clean. He, the petitioner on bail. he learned APP for the State, assisted plainant, has argued on the lines of the titioner misrepresented to the prosecutr on the basis of which the prosecutrix oner for his treatment. hat the stand of the complainant under Se as, in the testimony recorded by the C gation of false promise has also been cor ecutrix who has been examined as PW2. he learned counsel for the petitioner, the the learned counsel for the complainant. to make further that the payments d persuaded the asis of fabricated e status report to found by the FSL .05.2022 and the tands examined, ed. In the charge till date only 07 o be a protracted erefore, urges the d by the learned status report. He rix as regard his paid substantial ection 161 CrPC, Court, have been rroborated by the learned APP for

¶18It is not in di dating App "Hinge" of numerous WhatsA there is any promise proposal of marria petitioner.

¶19A query was complainant to poin WhatsApp messages but the learned couns

¶20A detailed ap considering the app giving the reasons f material is being re prosecutrix who was erotic stories to the [Colly]) and subsequ

23.01.2021, 26.01.20

¶21In her examin petitioner first time flat saying that he ha to know that he wa credentials. Even aft AIR BNB and subse for four days and dur

¶22As regard the ispute that the complainant and the pet and not on a matrimonial App. There ha App messages between them and in none e made by the petitioner to marry the ge mooted by the prosecutrix and a also put by the Court to the learned t out any such promise made by the pe s exchanged between the petitioner and sel could not refer to any such WhatsApp ppreciation of evidence is not warranted plication for bail, however, for the lim for rejection or grant of bail, the testim eferred to. A perusal of the cross-exa s examined as PW-1 shows that she adm petitioner through chats on 12.01.2021 uently on various dates viz., on 19.01.20 021, 29.01.2021 and 15.02.2022. nation-in-chief also the complainant ha came to her flat on 01.02.2021 and afte as to visit Delhi University for a job offer as a B.Sc graduate with no Ph.D or l ter that on the same day in the evening th equent thereto, the prosecutrix stayed wi ring that period repeated sexual encounte e obscene photographs and videos of titioner met on a as been exchange e of the messages prosecutrix or a accepted by the counsel for the etitioner from the the complainant, p message. d at the stage of mited purpose of monies and other amination of the mitted having sent (Ex.PW-1/DX-1 021, 22.01.2021, s stated that the er that he left her r. She later came literature related hey moved to the ith the petitioner rs happened. f the prosecutrix recovered from the m in her cross examina taken with her conse

¶23In the aforesa appears to be consen marriage or the conse

¶24Insofar as sto been taking money regard his ill health papers to her, it app Court, more particu related to medical tr sim card and la petitioner/accused.

¶25On the contrar has herself admitted was for his help and

¶26That apart, it Rs.25,000/- was mad loan for his treatmen he will return the sa said amount was n continued to make hu

¶27It is also trite for recovery. Refere mobile phone of the petitioner by the FSL ation has admitted that such photographs nt. aid factual backdrop, prima facie, the se nsual and there does not seems be any ent having been obtained on a misconcep ory projected by the prosecution that th from the complainant by making misr and for that purpose he was sending fa pears from the status report filed by the ularly para 22 thereof, which shows th reatment was found by the FSL from th aptop, i.e., Apple Mac Book, sei ry, the prosecutrix at one stage of her cr d that whatever money she had given to out of her love and affection for him. is the case of the prosecution that the de by the prosecutrix to the petitioner o nt of malaria, on the promise made by th ame after April, 2021. It is not understan not repaid by the petitioner, then why uge payments to the petitioner. that a bail application cannot be equated ence in this regard may be had to the L, the prosecutrix and videos were exual intercourse false promise of ption of any fact. he petitioner had representation as abricated medical State before this hat no document he mobile phone, ized from the ross-examination the petitioner, it first payment of on 11.01.2021 as he petitioner that ndable that if the the prosecutrix d with a civil suit e decision of the Supreme Court in B thus: "9. We ha process of bail, is no has been n of its own.

¶10We wo cannot be particularl as to wheth in a given examined the Court parameter words, in regular ba payment o payment; c arrest bail any payme

¶28The probative the prosecution witn but this Court cann version projected by petitioner for grant o

¶29It is not in dis is also not the case Further, the investig more required for m 12023 SCC OnLine 51 Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar1,the relev ave indicated on more than one occasio f criminal law, particularly in matters o ot akin to money recovery proceedings noticed in the present case carries the pe ould reiterate that the process of crim e utilised for arm-twisting and money ly while opposing the prayer for bail. Th her pre-arrest bail, or for that matter re n case is to be granted or not is requ and the discretion is required to be ex with reference to the material on recor rs governing bail considerations. Putting a given case, the concession of pre-arr ail could be declined even if the accused of the money involved or offers to conversely, in a given case, the concessi l or regular bail could be granted irres ent or any offer of payment." (Emphasis e value of the evidence, the credibility a nesses will be seen by the learned Trial C ot be unmindful of the gaps that have y the prosecution which tilts the balance of regular bail. spute that the petitioner does not have cri e of the prosecution that the petitioner gation is complete and the custody of the making any recoveries from him. Ther vant extract reads on that the of grant of s but what eculiarities minal law recovery, he question gular bail, ired to be xercised by rd and the g it in other rest bail or d has made make any ion of pre-spective of s supplied) and reliability of Court during trial appeared in the in favour of the iminal record. It is a flight risk. e petitioner is no refore, no useful purpose will be serve

¶30The testimoni there is no possibilit event he is enlarged

¶31Furthermore, t date only 07 witness is not possible anyti case, the petitioner, in custody for an ind

¶32On an overall petitioner has made petitioner is admitted sum of Rs.25,000/- satisfaction of the T following conditions

(i) Petitioner s taken up for he

(ii) Petition Officer concer and he shall n the Investigati

(iii) Petition communicate or any family m

¶33The petition is

¶34It is made cle ed in keeping petitioner in jail. ies of public witnesses have been reco ty of witnesses being influenced by the on bail. the prosecution has cited as many as 18 w ses have been examined, therefore, the co me soon and in the given facts and circu who is behind the bars since 13.05.2022 definite period to await the conclusion of t l conceptus of facts and circumstances out a case for grant of regular bail. A d to bail subject to his furnishing a Perso and one Surety Bond of the like amou Trial Court / Jail Superintendent, furthe s:- shall appear before the Court as and wh earing. ner shall provide his mobile number to t rned which shall be kept in working cond not change the mobile number without pr ng Officer concerned. ner shall not indulge in any criminal activ with or come in contact with the compl members of the complainant/witnesses. s disposed of. ear that the observations made herein orded, therefore, petitioner in the witnesses and till onclusion of trial umstances of the 2, cannot be kept trial. of the case, the Accordingly, the onal Bond in the nt subject to the er subject to the hen the matter is the Investigating dition at all times rior intimation to vity and shall not lainant/witnesses are only for the purpose of consideri to be an expression o

¶35Copy of order necessary complianc

¶36Order dasti un

¶37Order be uploa JANUARY 03, 2024 MK ing the bail application and the same sha of opinion on the merits of the case. r be forwarded to the concerned Jail Su ce. nder signatures of the Court Master. aded on the website of this Court. VIKAS all not be deemed uperintendent for

S MAHAJAN, J.

* IN THE HIG % + BAIL APPLN ANIL NIRWA STATE OF NC CORAM: HON'BLE M VIKAS MAHAJAN 1. The present p with FIR No. 220/20 Garhi, New Delhi. 2. The case of t complainant met the "Hinge" and they be alleged that the p education, his engin GH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW D