SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajeev Ahuja vs State Of Haryana on 8 March, 2018

CRM No.M-38538 of 2017 and a connected case



1. Criminal Misc. No.M- 38538 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: March 08 , 2018.

Rajeev Ahuja …… PETITIONER(s)
State of Haryana …… RESPONDENT (s)

2. Criminal Misc. No. M- 42044 of 2017(OM).

Rekha Gupta …… PETITIONER(s)
State of Haryana …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocate and
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM No.M-38538 of 2017.

Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM No.M-42044 of 2017.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?


This order shall dispose of CRM No.M-38538 of 2017 (Rajeev

Ahuja v. State of Haryana) and CRM No.M-42044 of 2017 (Rekha Gupta v.

State of Haryana). Facts are being extracted from CRM No.M-38538 of 2017.

1 of 5
11-03-2018 05:08:37 :::
CRM No.M-38538 of 2017 and a connected case


Prayer in both the petitions is for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioners in FIR No.326 dated 14.09.2017 under Sections 376/328/34 IPC,

registered at Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat.

As per allegations in the FIR, the complainant was working as a

Salesgirl for the last 8-9 years at a Beauty Parlour. She has four daughters and a

son. Her husband is a Salesman at Karol Bagh. The petitioner-Rekha Gupta is

stated to be a visitor at the parlour and the petitioner-Rajeev Ahuja an employee

at the parlour. The complainant was asked to join a party by both the petitioners

on 16.07.2017. All of them went to a hotel on the said date at 10.30 a.m. As per

allegations, a cold drink was served to the prosecutrix on which, she became

unconscious. On regaining consciousness, she found herself to be disrobed with

pain in her lower abdomen. The petitioners started fighting with each other. The

petitioner-Rekha Gupta argued with the petitioner-Rajeev Gupta for committing a

wrong act with the complainant. It is further stated that the prosecutrix came out

of the hotel quietly without informing anyone, but on the way she was made to sit

in the vehicle by both the petitioners. She however managed to escape from the

running vehicle, but she was again taken into the vehicle and left at her home. It

is stated that the complainant did not disclose these facts to her family members

out of fear. On 22.08.2017, the complainant allegedly consumed excess pain-

killers. Thereafter, the present FIR seeking action against the petitioners was


Contentions on behalf of the petitioner-Rajeev Ahuja as noted on

02.11.2017, read as under:-

“Apart from referring to the contradictions in the statements at

2 of 5
11-03-2018 05:08:37 :::
CRM No.M-38538 of 2017 and a connected case


Annexures P14 and P15, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the improbability of the averments by the prosecution is writ
large. The prosecutrix who is admittedly working as a Sales girl in a
Beauty Parlour was regularly attending her duties subsequent to
16.07.2017. While referring to the photographs (Annexure P6), it is
submitted that the prosecutrix was clearly leading a normal life.
There is no explanation for the prosecutrix for waiting till
22.08.2017 to lodge a complaint. Moreover, the male person
figuring in the photographs with the complainant in Annexure P6, is
not the petitioner. The complainant is admittedly a married lady
having four daughters and one son.”

It is further submitted that the complainant admittedly continued to

attend her work after the alleged incident and raised no protest for over month,

which on the face of it is improbable in case there had been any truth in the

allegations against the petitioners. It is submitted that both the petitioners have

joined investigation and they undertake to face the proceedings and not misuse

the concession of anticipatory bail, if afforded to them. The final report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C., it is stated, has been presented. Therefore, it is prayed that

both the petitions be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Chain

Singh, submits that both the petitioners have joined investigation and final report

under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has since been presented in this case on 06.03.2018.

The petitioners are not involved in any other criminal case. There are no

allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioners are likely to abscond or that

they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts before the

Court, if released on bail.

It is noticed that learned counsel for the State, on instructions from

3 of 5
11-03-2018 05:08:37 :::
CRM No.M-38538 of 2017 and a connected case


SI Kuldeep Singh, on 02.11.2017 had submitted that the man in the first two

photographs (Annexure P6) was indeed the petitioner-Rajeev Ahuja. However

on the next date of hearing i.e. 12.01.2018, it was stated on instructions from the

same officer i.e., SI Kuldeep Singh that the person reflected in the two

photographs (Annexure P6) is actually not the petitioner and it was under some

misconception that such a statement was made before this Court on 02.11.2017.

The Superintendent of Police, Sonipat was directed to look into the matter and

file a status report.

Status report dated 07.03.2018 by way of affidavit of Mr. Satender

Kumar, IPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Sonipat, filed in Court today, is

taken on record subject to just exceptions. It is stated therein that a regular

departmental enquiry has been initiated against SI Kuldeep Singh for grave

negligence and the matter shall be taken to its logical end. In view of the said

affidavit, no further orders in this report are being passed at this stage. Report

after conclusion of the enquiry be submitted, preferably within four months from


Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without

commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the

petitions are allowed. Consequently, order dated 12.01.2018 is made absolute.

It is made clear that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly try

to contact the complainant-prosecutrix, any of her family members or witnesses

in this case. Any such infraction on the part of the petitioners may entail

cancellation of their bail.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall

4 of 5
11-03-2018 05:08:37 :::
CRM No.M-38538 of 2017 and a connected case


be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

March 08 , 2018. JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

5 of 5
11-03-2018 05:08:37 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation