IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1752/2017 CRL.M.A. 14404/2017
SANJAY JAIN …..Petitioner
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ….Respondent
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
- By approach of a benefaction petition filed underneath Section 438 of a Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.), a postulant seeks extend of anticipatory bail in honour of FIR No. 0308 antiquated 21.07.2017, underneath Section 354/354A/506 of The Indian Penal Code,1860(hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’), purebred by P.S. Jafarabad, New-Delhi.
- Briefly staid a contribution of a box are that a censure was lodged on 21.07.2017 by one Dimple who purported that, on 17.07.2017 during around 4 pm her brother-in-law (devar), who used to stay with her mother-in-law, had come to her residence when she was alone during home and forcefully attempted to make earthy family with her and even threatened her when she objected. The purported occurrence was narrated by her, to her father who did not compensate any mind to it and then, after she narrated it to her hermit and her aunt. She reported a occurrence to a military officials and a censure was lodged underneath a Sections 354/354A/506 of IPC.
- Ms. Ishita Jain, a schooled warn for a postulant contended that that a benefaction FIR filed opposite a postulant is fake and fabricated; that a postulant visited a residence of a prosecutrix on an invitation finished by her for lunch; that a prosecutrix threatens her father and his family members many a times of filing fake cases of domestic violence, passionate nuisance etc; that in a year 2005, she filed a fake box of domestic attack opposite her husband, that was after on cold by her; that her function towards her father and his family is unreasonable; that she even went on a vacation, with her father along with a postulant and a friend, a month before filing a FIR. Hence, a benefaction petition should be allowed.
- Per Contra, schooled APP has vehemently opposite a bail focus by saying that a postulant has been escaped detain and has not assimilated a investigation. He serve purported that a anticipatory bail focus has been formerly deserted by a schooled ASJ gripping in perspective a earnest of a allegations. Hence, a benefaction petition is probable to be set aside.
- I have listened a schooled warn for a parties and perused a component accessible on record.
- Before adverting to a doubt lifted in a benefaction petition, it is seen that a postulant is charged for a offences underneath Sections 354/354A/506 of IPC. Section 354 IPC, creates penal a attack or use of rapist force to a lady to snub her modesty. The essential mixture of corruption underneath Section 354 IPC are: (a) that a attack contingency be on a woman; (b) that a indicted contingency have used rapist force on her; (c) that a rapist force contingency have been used on a lady intending thereby to snub her modesty. In Raju Pandurang Mahale vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr reported in (2004) 4 SCC 371, it has been celebrated that :
“What constitutes an snub to womanlike tact is nowhere defined. The hint of a woman’s tact is her sex. The culpable goal of a indicted is a crux of a matter. The greeting of a lady is really relevant, though a deficiency is not always decisive. Modesty in this Section is an charge compared with womanlike tellurian beings as a class. It is a trait that attaches to a womanlike overdue to her sex. The act of pulling a women, stealing her saree, joined with a ask for passionate intercourse, is such as would be an snub to a tact of a woman; and knowledge, that tact is expected to be outraged, is sufficient to consecrate a corruption though any counsel goal carrying such ourtrage alone for a object. As indicated above, a word ‘modesty’ is not tangible in IPC. The shorter Oxford Dictionary (Third Edn.) defines a word ‘modesty’ in propinquity to lady as follows: “Decorous in demeanour and conduct; not brazen or lowe; Shame-fast: Scrupulously chast.” Modesty is tangible as a peculiarity of being modest; and in propinquity to woman, “womanly appropriateness of behaviour; scrupluous purity of thought, debate and conduct.” It is a haven or clarity of contrition move from intrinsic hatred to polluted or counterfeit suggestions. As celebrated by Justice Patterson in Rex v. James Llyod, (1876) 7 C P 817. In sequence to find a indicted guilty of an attack with vigilant to dedicate a rape, justice contingency be confident that a accused, when he laid reason of a prosecutrix, not usually preferred to conciliate his passions on her chairman though that he dictated to do so during all events, and notwithstanding any insurgency on her part. The indicate of eminence between an corruption of try to dedicate rape and to dedicate faulty attack is that there should be some movement on a partial of a indicted that would uncover that he was usually going to have passionate tie with her. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of a English Language defines tact as “freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency, a courtesy for appropriateness in dress, debate or conduct”. In a Oxford English Dictionary (1933 Edn.), a definition of a word ‘modesty’ is given as “womanly appropriateness of behaviour: tasteful purity of thought, debate and control (in male or woman); haven or clarity of contrition move from intrinsic hatred to polluted or counterfeit suggestions.” In State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR (1967) SC 63 a doubt arose possibly a womanlike child of 7 and a half months could be pronounced to be hexed of ‘modesty’ that could be outraged. In responding a above doubt a infancy perspective was that when any act finished to or in a participation of a lady is clearly revealing of sex according to a common notions of humankind that contingency tumble within a effect of Section 354 IPC. Needless to say, a “common notions of mankind” referred to have to be gauged by contemporary governmental standards. It was serve celebrated in a pronounced box that a hint of a woman’s tact is her sex and from her really birth she possess a tact that is a charge of her sex. From a above compendium definition of ‘modesty’ and a interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh’s box (supra) a ultimate exam for ascertaining possibly tact has been angry is possibly a movement of a delinquent is such as could be viewed as one that is able of intolerable a clarity of goodness of a woman. The above position was remarkable in Rupan Deal Bajaj (Mrs.) and Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Anr.,  6 SCC 194.
When a above exam is practical in a benefaction case, gripping in perspective a sum fact situation, a unavoidable end is that a acts of indicted appellant and a petrify purpose be consistently played from a commencement valid multiple of persons and minds as good and as such amounted to “outraging of her modesty” for it was an aspersion to a normal clarity of feminist decency.”
- The postulant has been charged for a corruption underneath Section 354 IPC i.e assault/criminal force to a lady to snub her tact as good as for a corruption underneath Section 354A IPC i.e earthy hit with pithy passionate overtures and direct of passionate favour. Further, for a corruption underneath Section 506 IPC, that states that “506. Punishment for rapist intimidation.– Whoever commits, a corruption of rapist danger shall be punished with seizure of possibly outline for a tenure that might extend to dual years, or with fine, or with both; If hazard be to means genocide or disgusting hurt, etc.–And if a hazard be to means genocide or disgusting hurt, or to means a drop of any skill by fire, or to means an corruption punishable with genocide or 1[imprisonment for life], or with seizure for a tenure that might extend to 7 years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with seizure of possibly outline for a tenure that might extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with both.”
- Keeping in perspective a above authorised proposition, it is celebrated in a contribution and resources of a benefaction box that a prosecutrix has finished specific allegations in her censure opposite a postulant during camp of a FIR and has serve staid on identical lines during recording of her statements underneath Section 164 Cr.P.C where it has been categorically staid by her that a postulant always attempted to make earthy family with her in deficiency of her husband; that even her father as good as her mother-in-law never upheld her to ensue opposite a petitioner; that on 17.07.2017, he visited her residence and forcibly attempted kissing her, touching her, tore off her garments and tormented her.
- On examination of a statements finished by her opposite a petitioner, it is celebrated that a allegations opposite a postulant are grave and serious. Also, in Status Report, it has been staid that a review is still in routine and a postulant herein is escaped detain by not fasten a investigation. Thus, a probability of a postulant evading a procession of law, tampering with a justification or melancholy a complainant exists. In my view, given a box is during a threshold and a investigations are underway, it will be most scuttling a review in box a anticipatory bail is postulated to a postulant that will emanate hurdles in nearing during a truth.
- Determining a parameters in extenuation anticipatory bail in cases of critical offences. The Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs State Of Gujarat Anr reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152 after examining a whole law has celebrated as under:-
“(a) The inlet and sobriety of a indictment and a accurate purpose of a indicted contingency be scrupulously comprehended before detain is made;
(b) The qualifications of a applicant including a fact as to possibly a indicted has formerly undergone seizure on self-assurance by a justice in honour of any cognizable offence;
(c) The probability of a applicant to rush from justice;
(d) The probability of a accused’s odds to repeat identical or other offences;
(e) Where a accusations have been finished usually with a vigilant of injuring or degrading a applicant by impediment him or her;
(f) Impact of extend of anticipatory bail quite in cases of vast bulk inspiring a really vast series of people;
(g) The courts contingency weigh a whole accessible component opposite a indicted really carefully. The justice contingency also clearly sense a accurate purpose of a indicted in a case. The cases in that a indicted is concerned with a assistance of Sections 34 and 149 of a Penal Code, 1860 a justice should cruise with even larger caring and caution, since overimplication in a cases is a matter of common believe and concern;
(h) While deliberation a request for extend of anticipatory bail, a change has to be struck between dual factors, namely, no influence should be caused to free, satisfactory and full investigation, and there should be impediment of harassment, chagrin and undue confinement of a accused;
(i) The Court should cruise reasonable confinement of tampering of a declare or confinement of hazard to a complainant;
(j) Frivolity in charge should always be deliberate and it is usually a component of genuineness that shall have to be deliberate in a matter of extend of bail and in a eventuality of there being some doubt as to a genuineness of a prosecution, in a normal march of events, a indicted in entitled to an sequence of bail.”
- In perspective of a aforesaid staid principles, a contribution and resources of a benefaction box and perusing a allegations intended opposite a petitioner, and deliberation a sobriety of offence, this justice is not prone to extend anticipatory bail to a petitioner. Accordingly, a petition mount discharged along with a tentative application.
- Observations finished in a sequence shall have no impact on a merits of a case.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL