Anuradha v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Thr. Sho Police Station Jagat Puri

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J NOVEMBER 17, 2017 gr//

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Judgment reserved on 8th November,2017 Judgment pronounced on 17th November, 2017 Ms. ANURADHA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M. Mohsin Israily & Mr. Saif Islam Israily, Avocates versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. & ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State. Mr. Puneet Garg & Mr. Nitesh Gupta, Advocates for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. The present petition have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred as 'Cr P C') challenging the order dated 13.11.2014 whereby learned Trial Court granted bail to Jitender Kumar/accused/respondent no.2 in case FIR No. 407/2013 registered at PS Jagatpuri, Delhi, under sections 376/328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred 'IPC'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complaint was lodged at police Station Jagatpuri on 06.09.2013, by the prosecutrix under Section 376/328 of IPC. It was alleged by her in the complaint that in April 2011, she went to the accused's/respondent no.2 shop to buy jeans where after they started talking to each other. One day, the accused proposed her for the marriage and told her that he had already told his family members of marriage. Their marriage was later accepted by both the families and then around April 2011, the accused called her at his house on the pretext of meeting his sister- in-law. On reaching the house, she saw that no one was present there, she was offered cold drink by him and after consuming it she became unconscious. It was further alleged that the accused committed sexual intercourse with her. He continued to have physical relations with her on the promise of marriage. It was in March 2013, the accused refused to marry her, that the complaint was lodged by the petitioner under Section 376/328 IPC. The accused was arrested on 07.09.2013 and was granted bail by the learned ASJ vide order dated 13.11.2014. Hence, the present petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court has erred in passing the order dated 13.11.2014 as the same is based on conjectures and surmises; that on 26.05.2014, the accused/respondent no.2 had paid a sum of Rs. 7,10,000 to the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage, in pursuance to change of her statements and also obtained signatures of the petitioner on the typed affidavit; that the said money was taken back by them on 02.06.2014 but the signed affidavit was not returned to her; that on 31.10.2014, the said affidavit was misused by him by presenting the same in the concerned court and on that pretext application for interim bail was moved by him in the court; that on 13.11.2014, regular bail was granted by the Trial Court, though the application for grant of interim bail for 2 months was moved on behalf of the respondent no.2; that after the grant of the regular bail to the respondent no.2, the petitioner was threatened by him and on account of which the complaint was lodged by her 10/11.12.2014 and also furnished the necessary details to the police officials. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 contended that the accused/respondent no. 2 has been falsely implicated in this case; that the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 were in relationship for 2 ½ years and also visited several places together; that there are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix during the process of recording of the evidences; that there is no medical or forensic evidence against the respondent No. 2; that the Trial court had rightly granted him the bail after considering all the materials on record. 5. The submissions made by the both the parties have been considered and the records have been perused. 6. Before making the necessary observations on the said contentions, it is relevant to peruse the principles for considering application for the Cancellation of Bail.