Full Judgment Text
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1003/2008
Date of decision : 20.05.2008
# AJAY KUMAR @ BABLOO ...... Petitioner
! Through : Mr. J.S.Kushwaha,
Advocate
Versus
$ STATE ……Respondent
^ Through : Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney,
APP for the State.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not?
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
J U D G M E N T
ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. No. 5660/2008 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Bail.Appl. 1003/2008 Page 1 of 4
BAIL APPLN. 1003/2008
1. Complainant Prem Babu lodged an FIR
No.585/2002 in Police Station Dabri, under Section 363
IPC on 26.08.2002 that his daughter Monika, aged about
15 years had been enticed away by the Petitioner Ajay
Kumar @ Babloo. During the investigation of the case,
the prosecutrix was recovered. She also made her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. In her statement she has
roped in the Petitioner for having enticed her away and
taking her to Bihar where he allegedly married her in a
temple and thereafter sexually harassed her and
committed rape on her against her wishes.
Consequently, Section 376 IPC was also added in the
FIR. Petitioner was absconding and could not be
arrested till 27.10.2007 after he was declared
proclaimed offender.
2. Mr. J.S. Kushwaha, Advocate, learned counsel for
the Petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix was
major as she was 16 years old. She left her parents
house without informing them of her own. She married
Bail.Appl. 1003/2008 Page 2 of 4
the accused/petitioner and lived with him as his wife
voluntarily and therefore petitioner is entitled to be
released on bail.
3. The contentions of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner are fortified from the fact that the prosecutrix
was kidnapped on 21.08.2002 and on 24.08.2002 he took
her to Bihar where he allegedly married her in a temple
and he sexually harassed the prosecutrix in a rented
room for about two months. Accused-petitioner himself
left the prosecutrix at the railway station, Delhi on
21.10.2002 at about 11.30 A.M.. Since thereafter his
whereabouts were not known and he never contacted
the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was about 15 years of age
on the date of the incident as per the admission card for
regular candidate for taking examination which was
th
scheduled to take place on 30 July, 2002. According to
this admit card, her date of birth is 26.07.1987. The
incident took place on 21.08.2002. Therefore,
prosecutrix was 15 years of age at the time of the
incident. Her father had also given her age in the
complaint as 15 years. Hence, prima facie she was minor
at the time of incident and could not have been a
Bail.Appl. 1003/2008 Page 3 of 4
consenting party to join the company of the Petitioner,
to marry him and live with him as his wife as alleged by
the Petitioner.
4. Allegations against the petitioner are serious in
nature. Not only this, the conduct of the Petitioner is
evident as he absconded away and evaded his arrest for
over a period of five years. There is every likelihood of
his absconding away if released on bail. Hence, I find no
merits in the petition and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
5. Attested copy of the order be sent to the concerned
trial court as well as to the State.
ARUNA SURESH
(JUDGE)
May 20, 2008
vk
Bail.Appl. 1003/2008 Page 4 of 4