Govind Raj vs The State on 30 May, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and order: May 30th 2017

+ BAIL APPLN. 994/2017
GOVIND RAJ
….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Niraj Chaudhary, Mr. A.S.
Sharma, Advocates

versus

THE STATE
….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State with
W/Inspector Vipesh, Police Station
Vijay Vihar, Delhi

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER

%
P.S. TEJI, J. (ORAL)

1. By this application filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., the
petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 467/2017 under
Section
376/
506 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Vijay
Vihar, Delhi.

2. The case in hand was registered on the complaint of prosecutrix
being an employee in a private firm. She had stated in her complaint
that she felt love towards the petitioner who made false promise of
marriage and also gave her un-hygienic meals for treating her
according to his wishes. She also stated that the petitioner had been

Crl. L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 1 of 6
black mailing her on the pretext of her photos. According to her, the
petitioner refused 7-8 times after making promise of marriage.
Petitioner’s family members and his sister in law also misbehaved
with her. It is also alleged that the petitioner threatened her with
spoiling her life in case she married another person or he would shoot
the other person. It is also alleged that the petitioner on the pretext of
false promise of marriage, took her to a room near New Delhi Railway
Station and made illicit relations with her for two years.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
prosecutrix is aged about 23 years and is known to the petitioner since
the last about five years and both of them had been visiting with each
other including the family residence of both the parties. It is further
contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to marry the
prosecutrix and so far as the allegation regarding harassment of the
prosecutrix is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner never
caused any sort of harassment. It is further contended that the
petitioner had first moved his anticipatory bail application and interim
bail was granted by learned Special Judge (CBI-II), District North-
West, Rohini Courts, Delhi till 02.05.2017 but the same has now been
rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – 03, North West
Rohini Delhi vide order dated 02.05.2017. It is further contended that
the prosecutrix had voluntarily made friendly relations with the
petitioner and she was in a ‘live-in relationship’ with the petitioner for
about five years and was involved with him physically, emotionally
and mentally and the petitioner had promised her with marriage as

READ  Khush Chaddha And Ors. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 22 October, 2007

Crl. L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 2 of 6
soon as possible and the prosecutrix also requested the petitioner to
visit Vaishno Devi Mandir in June 2016 alongwith her family
members and the petitioner also visited there with her family
members. It is further stated that the petitioner had been cooperating
with the investigation and attending the proceedings before the
investigating officer concerned and also handed over one mobile
phone and pen drive containing the photographs of the prosecutrix and
the petitioner and never avoided joining the investigation and he is
still ready and willing to join the investigation as and when required.
Apart from the above, it is urged that there is no incriminating
evidence against the petitioner showing the involvement of the
petitioner in the present case and the petitioner never administered any
sort of obnoxious substance to the prosecutrix with motive to make
physical relations with the prosecutrix. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this
court in Rohit Chauhan vs. State NCT of Delhi, 2013 (2) CC Cases
(HC) 311. Therefore, it is urged that the petitioner be granted
concession of pre-arrest bail in the present case.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State filed the
status report and vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions of the
petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the State that the prosecutrix
has specifically stated in her complaint that the petitioner had taken
obscene photographs of her and she still doubts that the petitioner may
threaten and pressurize her with the same. For the purpose of
recovering the other photographs of the prosecutrix the custodial

READ  Pooja Modi vs Navin Modi on 5 July, 2017

Crl. L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 3 of 6
interrogation is required. On this pretext, it is prayed that the bail
application of the petitioner be rejected.

5. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the sides
and also gone through the contents of the petition and the record of
this case.

6. In the first place, it is necessary to observe that in the present
proceedings, this Court is not concerned about the feasibility of the
allegations of the offence punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal
Code or merit thereof but on the grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, at this stage, it
cannot be said as to whether there was any physical relationship
between the petitioner and the complainant and, if so, whether it was
consensual. The fact remains that there are specific allegations of rape
against the petitioner. It would ultimately be for the trial court to
arrive at the findings as to whether such an allegation stands proved or
not, on the basis of evidence that would be produced by the
prosecution in support of its case. With these preliminary remarks, I
advert to the core issue, namely, whether in the circumstances of this
case, petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail or not.

7. For granting anticipatory bail to the person against whom the
allegations of rape have been levelled, the factors that need to be taken
into consideration, are; (a) the nature and gravity of the accusation and
the exact role of the accused; (b) The possibility of the applicant to
flee from justice; (c) The possibility of the accused’s to repeat the
same or similar such offences; (d) Impact of grant of anticipatory

Crl. L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 4 of 6
bail especially in such cases that affect a very large number of people;

(e) while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a
balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice
should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should
be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of
the accused; (f) The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant
and unless there are peculiar and special facts and circumstances in a
given case, the Court would not be justified in extending the benefit of
anticipatory bail to such a person.

READ  Amit @ Lalu vs State on 25 May, 2017

8. This court also observed the record of the case, which shows
that the petitioner has himself annexed the photographs of the
prosecutrix with him, which itself strengthen the apprehension of the
prosecutrix that the petitioner must have more photographs apart from
the photos already in the pen drive and mobile phones, which have
been handed over by the petitioner to the investigating officer of this
case.

9. In view of the aforesaid settled principles and considering the
facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the
investigation is at a preliminary stage; and while perusing the
allegations levelled against the petitioner, and considering the gravity
of offence and the nature, this Court is not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in this case.

10. Resultantly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the facts

Crl. L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 5 of 6
emerging from the record culminates into dismissal of the present bail
application. Accordingly, the present bail application filed by the
petitioner is dismissed.

11. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it
on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of
disposing of the prayer for anticipatory bail made by the petitioner.
Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a
final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in
the case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court
seized of the trial.

12. With aforesaid direction, the present bail application, filed by
the petitioner stands disposed of

P.S.TEJI, J
MAY 30, 2017
pkb

Crl. L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 6 of 6

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *