* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18.09.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2336/2019
RAHUL SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sugam Kumar Jha, Ms. Tanu
Priya Gupta and Ms. Shailja Gupta,
STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State
with ASI Asha Bisht, PS – Chanakya
Mr. Girdhar Govind and
Mr. Baljinder Singh, Adv. for
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Vide the present application, the applicant/ accused seeks directions
thereby to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with
FIR No. 87/2019 registered at Chanakyapuri Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 376/Section506 IPC on such terms and condition as this
Court may deem fit and proper.
BAIL APPLN. 2336/2019. Page 1 of 7
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the
applicant and prosecutrix used to go out for late-night dinners and parties
and in most cases, the applicant used to pay for the outings. When the
applicant used to meet his colleagues, the prosecutrix always insisted on
accompanying him. It reached an extent that it used to be very
uncomfortable for the applicant to see the prosecutrix alone amongst men in
an intoxicated state. There have also been incidents when the applicant
showed his discomfort towards the same and the prosecutrix used to abuse
the applicant alleging him to be a narrow-minded man who does not deserve
3. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix and applicant got
physically involved as the applicant was in severe depression due to the
medical condition of his mother and the pending divorce proceedings with
his wife. The prosecutrix took such a gesture of the applicant as that of true
love and never questioned his intentions.
4. Subsequently, as the demands of the prosecutrix started growing and
when the applicant was unable to fulfil them due to shortage of money, their
relationship started to turn sour. It went to such an extent that the applicant
was humiliated in public by the prosecutrix and words like ‘kadka’ and
BAIL APPLN. 2336/2019. Page 2 of 7
‘nanga’ were used against him. The prosecutrix used to abuse the mother of
the applicant as well, even though at the beginning of the relationship she
encouraged the applicant to spend more time with her. Subsequently, she
started asking the applicant why he is spending so much on her medicines
considering her age.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the physical relations between
the applicant and the prosecutrix were consensual and Sectionsection 376 IPC does
not attract in this case.
6. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of State submits
that the petitioner was married, however, he still gave false promises of
marriage to prosecutrix and, accordingly, she agreed to have physical
relations. He further submits that the applicant was not supposed to conceal
marriage and should not have given false promises to many to the
prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had physical relations with applicant on false
promise, but on one day, as per the statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., the applicant gave beer to her which was spiked with some
intoxication and at that point of time, when she was not in her senses, the
applicant took advantage of that and had sexual intercourse with prosecutrix
without her consent.
BAIL APPLN. 2336/2019. Page 3 of 7
7. The FIR mentioned above is registered on the basis of written
complaint of the prosecutrix. She stated in the complaint that in the month of
January, 2019, when she was working at PVR Chanakyapuri, at around 7.00
-7.30 PM, one person, namely, Rahul Singh (applicant herein), came to her
and told her that he was not feeling well due to stomach pain. So, as per her
duty, she gave him luke warm water and then he requested for ENO. She
requested her staff to get the ENO medicine and they gave him the same.
After few days, the applicant sent her a message on facebook messenger by
stating ‘Thank you ‘S’., you helped me’.
8. After few days, the applicant again came to PVR Chanakyapuri
Cinema and he personally spoke to her and thanked her and he also told her
that he was working with MPs (Members of Parliament) and after talking for
a while, they both became good friends and exchanged their numbers.
Applicant used to visit the prosecutrix at her office to pick and drop her and
they both used to have lunch together almost everyday.
9. In the month of March, 2019, applicant proposed the prosecutrix for
marriage at India Gate. She trusted him. As he kept a very warm and loving
behaviour towards her, she accepted his marriage proposal. At first, the
applicant took her to his friend’s place (home) at Chanakya Puri and got
BAIL APPLN. 2336/2019. Page 4 of 7
intimate with her. After that applicant used to take her to different OYO
Rooms at various times and got physical with her. On 10.03.2019, applicant
took the prosecutrix to the Eros Garden OYO Rooms and made physical
relations with her. Thereafter, he regularly took her to the OYO Rooms i.e.
13.03.2019, 20.03.2019, 31.03.2019 and he had physical relations with her
everytime. In the month of May, 2019, applicant took the prosecutrix to the
OYO Room and on that day, the prosecutrix asked applicant as to when they
were getting married, to which the applicant replied that they will marry in
the month of November or after Diwali. However, on 29.06.2019, the
prosecutrix came to know that she was pregnant and she immediately
informed to the applicant in reply to which he asked her not to worry and
advised her to take contraceptive pill. Afterwards, he came and gave her
some contraceptive pills for not conceiving. On 04.07.2019, applicant and
the prosecutrix also stayed in OYO, NFC. On 31.07.2019, applicant took the
prosecutrix to OYO Kapoor Inn in Greater Kailash and again, they had
physical relations. On that night, the prosecutrix came to know that the
applicant was already married with a girl ‘P’ and his divorce case was also
going on. Thus, he had physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage
and had raped her thereon.
BAIL APPLN. 2336/2019. Page 5 of 7
10. On the basis of written complaint made by the prosecutrix, the FIR in
question was registered against the applicant. But, fact remains that the
applicant and the prosecutrix had frequent physical relations at different
hotels and at different places. Even on 31.07.2019, when she came to know
that applicant was married, they had physical relations with each other.
11. In view of above facts without commenting on the merits of the case,
I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.
12. Accordingly, the SHO/Arresting Officer/IO concerned, is hereby
directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner/ applicant be released on
bail on the following terms and conditions:-
(i) That the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of
Arresting Officer/SHO/IO concerned;
(ii) That the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation before police officer, as and when called;
(iii) That applicant shall not contact directly and indirectly to any of
the prosecution witnesses.
BAIL APPLN. 2336/2019. Page 6 of 7
In case of default of aforementioned conditions, the State is at liberty
to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.
13. Application stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.
14. Order dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
SEPTEMBER 18, 2019
BAIL APPLN. 2336/2019. Page 7 of 7