* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.09.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 1867/2018
RAHIS ….. Petitioner
STATE (THE NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.K.K. Manan, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Bhavya
Chauhan, Ms.Akansha Malhotra, Mr.Shekhar
Tandon, Ms.Shivani Kant Mr.Mukul Aggrawal,
For the Respondent: Mr.Kamal Kumar Ghai, Addl. PP for the State.
ASI Ram Singh PS Amar Colony.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.270/2017 under sections
377/34 IPC read with section 6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Vijay
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the co-accused had committed an
offence under section 377 IPC against the complainant 3-4 months ago and
repeated the same one day before the date of the complaint. At the time of
BAIL APPLN. 1867/2018 Page 1 of 3
making the complaint, it was further alleged that the petitioner had also
committed the same offence against the complainant about one month ago.
3. The statement of complainant/victim has been recorded before the
Trial Court. He has reiterated his averments in the FIR. However, he has
stated that he was threatened by the co-accused not to make any complaint
insofar as the offence committed by the co-accused is concerned.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the ossification
test of the victim/complainant has opined that the age of the victim is about
16-18 years. He submits that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Ram Suresh Singh vs Prabhat Singh @ Chhotu Singh Anr:
(2009) 6 SCC 681, the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological
examination is two years on either side and keeping in view the margin of
error in age, the age would have been taken as 20 years.
5. He further submits that there is delay in making a complaint insofar
as the petitioner is concerned and further that there is no allegation even in
the testimony before the Court that the petitioner had threatened the victim.
Therefore, there was no reason for the victim not to make a complaint
against the petitioner if the offence had been committed.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no
medical evidence to substantiate the commission of the offence by the
petitioner except for the oral testimony of the victim. He submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated as there was a monetary transaction
between the father of the victim and the petitioner. Since the petitioner had
demanded his loan amount, he was falsely implicated in this case.
BAIL APPLN. 1867/2018 Page 2 of 3
7. The petitioner has been in custody since 17.07.2017.
8. Learned APP submits that 27 prosecution witnesses have been cited
and only one has been examined.
9. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view
the totality of facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner
has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, on petitioner on
furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, petitioner shall be released on
bail, if not required in any other case. The petitioner shall not do anything,
which may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner
shall not contact the victim or his family. Petitioner shall not leave the
country without the permission of the Court.
10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
BAIL APPLN. 1867/2018 Page 3 of 3