In a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, bail has been granted to the applicant in a case against the State of Delhi. The case revolves around allegations of rape and discrepancies in the statements provided by the prosecutrix. Stay tuned for more details on this significant legal development.
Facts
- The prosecution alleges that the applicant raped the prosecutrix while her daughter was asleep in the bus at night.
- The prosecutrix gave a statement under Section 164 of the CrPC on 03.02.2021.
- The chargesheet was filed against the applicant under Section 376.
- The second bail application of the applicant was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court of Sh. Sandeep Garg, ASJ South East, Delhi.
- The prosecutrix and her daughter were allegedly taken to a hotel by the applicant after being induced with food.
- Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted at AIIMS Delhi on 03.02.2021.
Arguments
- Defense counsel argued that the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC contradicts the FIR.
- The applicant is portrayed as having a strong community standing and a clean record.
- The defense emphasized that the applicant has been in custody since 03.02.2021 with no significant reason for continued detention.
- The initial version in the DD No 10A report did not mention rape, casting doubt on the prosecutrix’s claims.
- The defense brought attention to the discrepancies between the prosecutrix’s Section 164 statement and the FIR.
- The defense questioned the plausibility of the prosecutrix’s child not waking during the alleged assault.
- It was noted that this is the third FIR lodged by the prosecutrix against different individuals.
- The Medical Legal Certificate from 03.02.2021 did not confirm any sexual assault.
- The defense stressed the applicant’s disadvantaged socioeconomic background, being the sole provider for his family with two minor children and a wife.
- The Additional Public Prosecutor and the prosecutrix’s counsel opposed bail, contending that there was no contradiction in the prosecutrix’s statements and that the seriousness of the offense precludes bail.
- They argued that the applicant’s arrest at a hotel substantiates the prosecutrix’s version of events.
- It was argued that releasing the applicant on bail could prejudice the trial.
- The Court emphasized not determining guilt during bail hearings but ensuring the accused’s liberty ahead of trial, with tailored conditions to address any potential risks.
- The Court noted the lack of rape allegations in the initial medical examination statement by the prosecutrix, coupled with conflicting narratives and actions.
- The defense claimed that the charges against the applicant were fabricated to extort money.
- The defense reiterated that the applicant was falsely implicated in the case.
- The prosecutrix had previously filed complaints with similar allegations against three persons at Gwalior.
- All the accused persons in the previous complaints were granted bail.
Analysis
- The applicant has clean antecedents and there is no allegation of flight risk or tampering with evidence.
- The victim has been examined and the absence of testimony or reaction from the child witness raises doubts.
- Contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements made by the prosecutrix cast doubt on the reliability of the allegations.
- The presence of the child during the alleged incident without any reaction is noted as discordant.
- The purpose of custodial interrogation is investigative and not punitive.
- The hotel manager stated that the prosecutrix demanded money from the applicant during the commotion.
- Keeping the applicant in jail is deemed unnecessary, and any apprehensions can be addressed by imposing conditions.
- A long period of incarceration is a factor to be considered when deciding on bail.
- The timely trial should be possible without significant delay.
- If the accused has been in jail for a considerable time and a prompt trial is not feasible, courts should typically grant bail.
- This principle was established in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb : AIR 2021 SC 712.
Decision
- The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.
- The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person involved in the case or tamper with evidence.
- The applicant cannot travel out of the country without prior permission from the trial court.
- The applicant must not tamper with evidence or engage in any unlawful acts that could prejudice the trial proceedings.
- The applicant should not contact or interact with the prosecutrix or her family in any manner.
- The applicant must report to the local police station weekly and keep his mobile phone active at all times.
- If any new complaint is lodged against the applicant, the State can seek cancellation of bail.
- The bail application has been allowed with the specified conditions.
- The applicant must provide his post-release address and inform the concerned IO/SHO of any address changes.
- The applicant must appear before the Trial Court as and when directed.
Case Title: BHOODEV SINGH Vs. STATE (2024:DHC:4095)
Case Number: BAIL APPLN.-251/2022
