Ranjeet Kumar @ Jeetu vs State on 3 November, 2017

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1036/2017
Order reserved on 1st November, 2017
Order pronounced on 03rd November, 2017

RANJEET KUMAR @ JEETU ……Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

Versus

STATE …..Respondent

Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with
SI. Subhash Chand, P.S. R.K. Puram.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred “Cr.PC.”), the petitioner
seeks grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 443/2016 under Sections
363/341/354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as
“IPC”) 8 of the POCSO Act registered at Police Station
R. K. Puram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.10.2016, Nagma complainant
approached the police station, R.K. Puram and stated that she lives in
R.K. Puram with her family and cousin sister. That at about 1 pm her
cousin sister went to public toilet. That a girl named XXX came to
her house and informed that a boy named Jeetu had taken her cousin

BAIL APPLN. 1036/2017 Page 1 of 6
sister towards Nalah. She immediately rushed towards the Jhuggi
nearby Nalah and saw that he had put one of his hands in the nicker
(underwear) of my cousin sister. On seeing her, the petitioner ran
away. She further stated that on being asked, the prosecutrix
informed that the accused lured her with cloth, pencil and copy and
was caressing her waist putting one hand in her nicker (underwear)
and was having physical contact of her body with his body. On the
complainant of the sister of the prosecutrix, FIR was registered and
chargesheet was filed. Status report is on record.

3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case; that
there are serious contradictions between the statement of the
complainant (PW-1), the prosecutrix (PW-2) and child witness
(PW-3) and hence the petitioner deserves to be released on Regular
(Bail); that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the
petitioner; that there is no chance of petitioner for absconding or
tampering with the prosecution evidence.

4. Per Contra, Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State opposed the bail
application and contended that the petitioner is not liable to be granted
Regular bail as he has been involved in the commission of a serious
offence which is henious in nature; that the accused may evade the
process of law, threaten the complainant and may also tamper with the
evidences which is being collected during investigation as the
petitioner resides in the same vicinity; that the statements of the

BAIL APPLN. 1036/2017 Page 2 of 6
complainant (PW-1), the prosecutrix (PW-2) and child witness
(PW-3) are trustworthy, consistent and also validates the case of the
prosecution.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.

6. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004 (7) SCC 528),
the Apex court has laid down the principles of granting or refusing
bail and held as under:

“The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well
settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion
in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though
at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the
case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in
such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail
was being granted particularly where the accused is
charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order
devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of
mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to
consider among other circumstances, the following factors
also before granting bail; they are:

a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment
in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence

BAIL APPLN. 1036/2017 Page 3 of 6
b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness
or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the
charge.”

7. Perusal of the record transpires that the matter is at the evidence stage.

The complainant (PW-1), the prosecutrix (PW-2) and child witness
(PW-3) were consistent in their testimonies recorded at various stages.
The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C
as well as the statements recorded in examination-in-chief were found
to be reliable, trustworthy and without and major inconsistencies also
withstood the test of cross-examination. The statement of prosecutrix
(PW-2) stands corroborated with the statement of the complainant
(PW-1) and child witness (PW-3). The prosecutrix (PW-2) during her
examination-in-chief deposed as under:-

“On 30.10.2016 at about 1 PM I went to toilet for
attending call of nature, When I came outside the toilet
after attending the call of nature, accused Jeetu who is
residing in our neighbourhood met me and he induced
me that he would give me clothes, pencil and copy atc.
But I was not willing and then he threatened me to kill.
He took me towards the nala and accused took me inside
a Jhuggi situated near the nala. Accused put his hand in
my undergarment and he hold my body tightly by holding

BAIL APPLN. 1036/2017 Page 4 of 6
my waist. After some time my elder cousin sister came
there. On seeing my elder sister accused ran away from
there.”

8. The complainant (PW-1) during her examination-in-chief deposed as
under:-

“On 30.10.2016 at about 1 PM my victim sister had gone
to toilet/call of nature. After about 15 minutes one girl
AXXXa came to me who is residing in our neighbourhood
and told me that accused Jeetu who is resident of
Ambedkar Basti was taking my victim cousin sister
forcibly with him towards nala. As soon as I received the
information I immediately went towards the nala and
when I reached infornt of Jhuggi near the nala, I saw
accused Jeetu present in the court today (correctly
identified) was present inside the jhuggi and he had put
his hand in the undergarment of my victim sister. As
soon as accused saw me he ran away from there”

9. The child witness (PW-3) during her examination-in-chief deposed as
under:-

“On 30.10.2016 I alongwith my friends were playing in
the gali near the toilet in our locality. At about I PM I
saw that accused Jeetu present in the court today
(correctly identified) who is also resident of our basti,

BAIL APPLN. 1036/2017 Page 5 of 6
was taking victim forcibly with him towards the nala and
accused was threatening the victim. I had told this fact
to the elder sister of the victim who had left the house for
searching of the victim.”

10. Though no medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted as
the complainant (PW-1) did not give consent for the examination of
the prosecutrix (PW-2) but the prosecutrix specifically named the
petitioner as the culprit to the Doctor who examined her. Moreover,
the status report reveals that the petitioner is involved in another FIR
No. 11/2016, dated 05.01.2016, under Sections 354/451 of the IPC
and 8 POCSO Act registered at Police Station, R. K. Puram.

11. Keeping in view the principle laid by the Apex Court, aforementioned
facts and circumstances, as well as taking into consideration the
gravity of the offences alleged, this court does not deem it a fit case to
grant bail to the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

13. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that observations
made in the order shall have no impact on the merit of the case.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
NOVEMBER 03 , 2017
gr//

BAIL APPLN. 1036/2017 Page 6 of 6

Leave a Comment

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