* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 11.09.2019
% Pronounced on : 16.09.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019
ROHIT SHARMA ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms. Monika Arora and Mr.
Kushal Kumar, Advocates.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghei, APP
for the State with Inspector
Rajesh Kumar, P.S. Rajender
Nagar, New Delhi.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Mr.
Dinhar Takiar, Mr. Sarthak
Garg, Mr. Sankalp Kohli, Ms.
Aekta Vats and Mr. Vikram
Kalra Advocates for the
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019 CRL.M.(Bail) 1061/2019
1. This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C read with
Section 482 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.
225/18 U/s 498A/406/354/506/511/34 SectionIPC registered at Police
Station-Rajinder Nagar, Delhi.
BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019 Page 1 of 6
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 06.12.2018, the
present FIR was registered at PS Rajinder Nagar, Delhi on the basis
of the complaint of the complainant in which she had levelled
allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty against the petitioner as
well as his entire family. On 10.12.2018, statement U/s 164 SectionCr.P.C.
of the complainant was recorded in which she alleged that petitioner
used to threaten her by showing gun for bringing more dowry and he
also used to show her porn movies against her will and asked her to do
as shown in porn movies and had sex forcefully. The complainant
also made allegations of sexual harassment against her bother-in-law
and father-in-law. According to her statement offence u/s 354 SectionIPC was
fond to be made out. However, in her initial complaint, the
complainant had stated about attempt of sexual assault. Therefore,
initially, the case was registered under Sectionsection 354/Section511 IPC.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It is argued by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and he has been
falsely implicated. It is further urged by the counsel that the
photographs given by the complainant are of the wedding and nothing
has been placed on record by the complainant showing that the
petitioner owns the said pistol or it was kept in his house. It is further
argued by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not
the owner of the pistol and the same belongs to his friend Abhimanyu
Chaudhary who had brought pistol and guns himself in the wedding
just to fire in air and the petitioner had just held the pistol in his hand
BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019 Page 2 of 6
to get his picture clicked. It is further urged by the counsel that the
allegations of unnatural sex by the petitioner and the allegations of
demand of dowry against the petitioner are false. It is further urged by
the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the allegation of threatening
with an firearm by the petitioner is an afterthought. It is further urged
by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is joining and
co-operating in the investigation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon H.B. Chaturvedi Vs. CBI, 2010 (3) JCC 2109, SectionState of
Rajasthan V. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308 and Arnesh Kumar Vs.
State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, Udit Raj Poonia Vs. State of
NCTD (II (2017) CCR 133 (Del.)) and Court on its own motion Vs.
CBI (109 (2003) DLT 494), SectionSocial Action Forum for Manav
Adhikar and another Vs. Union of India Ministry of Law and
Justice and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No 73 of 2015 with Criminal
Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of
2017 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on September 14, 2018
and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, it is urged by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state
assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is in
possession of huge quantity of complainant’s jewellery and to recover
the istridhan his custodial interrogation is required. It is further urged
by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is also required for the purpose of recovery of
weapons/firearms which according to the complainant have been used
at the time of extending threats to her. It is further argued by the Ld.
BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019 Page 3 of 6
Addl. PP for the state that during investigation the evidence in the
form of photographs and video of the marriage were provided by the
complainant and the investigation from the photographer is still
pending who had video-graphed and taken the photographs in the
marriage. It is further argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that
during investigation when petitioner was asked to produce the arms
with their license used by him, he denied the allegations and told that
the said arms belong to his friend Abhimanyu Choudhary, so a notice
U/s 41.1 SectionCr.P.C was served to Abhimanyu Choudhary on 12.07.2019
and during investigation Abhimanyu Chaudhary denied the guns to
be his and replied that the guns in the photographs were of the relative
of petitioner. On instructions from the IO, it is further urged by the
Ld. Addl. PP or the state that the petitioner is not co-operating in the
investigation and is not providing truthful account of the sequence of
events. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP that the petitioner
is giving evasive replies and is not cooperating in the investigation
while he is under the protective umbrella of interim orders. He
prayed for the dismissal of the bail application.
6. I have perused the judgments (supra) relied upon by the Ld.
counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to the law
laid down in the said judgments, but with due regards, the same are
not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, it is also
settled that each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and
circumstances. In the instant case, the Ld. Addl. PP for the state on
the instruction from the IO submitted that the petitioner is not co-
BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019 Page 4 of 6
operating in the investigation and is not disclosing the truthful
account with regard to the ownership of the guns in question and
taking advantage of the interim protection granted to him.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBI Vs. Anil Sharma (1997) 7
SCC 187 observed as follows :
“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-
oriented than questioning a suspect who is well
ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of
the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a
suspected person is of tremendous advantage in
disinterring many useful informations and also materials
which would have been concealed. Success in such
interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows
that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest
bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often
interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere
ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is
fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to
third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for,
such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all
criminal cases. The Court has to presume that
responsible police officers would conduct themselves in
a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the
task of disinterring offences would not conduct
themselves as offenders.”
8. Therefore, relying upon the judgment CBI Vs. Anil Sharma
(Supra), and looking into the allegations against the petitioner which
BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019 Page 5 of 6
are grave and serious in nature, the fact that weapons/firearms which
were allegedly used by the petitioner at the time of issuing threats to
the complainant are yet to be recovered and the petitioner is also not
co-operating in the investigation, I am not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The bail application is, therefore,
9. In view of the order passed in Bail Appln. 1461/2019, the
Crl.M.(Bail) 1061/2019 also stands dismissed.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
SEPTEMBER 16, 2019
BAIL APPLN. 1461/2019 Page 6 of 6