Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 22.03.2021
% Pronounced on : 09.04.2021
+ BAIL APPLN. 3091/2020
MAHENDER SWAMI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Kr. Panchal, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the
State with SI Sarla Asthana,
P.S. Kirti Nagar.
Ms. Inderjeet Sindhu, DHCLSC
with Ms. Mehak Bhatia, Adv.
for the complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
O R D E R
1. By way of this order, I shall dispose of the present petition
filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner for
grant of bail in case FIR No. 0279/2017 U/s 328/365/376-D IPC,
P.S. Kirti Nagar (Distt. West), New Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 24.08.2017
on receiving DD No. 14-A SI Asha Singh reached at E.S.I.
Signature Not Verified
Bail Appln. 3091/2020 Page 1 of 4
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:13.04.2021
17:22
Hospital, Basai Dara Pur, Delhi, where she found the victim
admitted vide MLC No. 524/17. The victim was not in a position
to give the statement. Therefore, on the basis of DD No. 14-A
and as per the contents of the MLC, the present FIR was
registered. In her MLC, the victim gave the alleged history of
kidnapping on 8 July 2017 by 4 people from Kirti Nagar by auto
after inhalation of drug and then she was gang raped 5-7 times at
unknown place, thereafter, she was left at her home.
3. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for
the state and have also gone through the records of this case.
4. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted by
him that the prosecutrix had given different version in her
different statements and even she has not supported the case of
the prosecution. It is further submitted that there is not even an
iota of evidence against the petitioner. It is further submitted that
the present FIR has been registered on behalf of the mother of the
victim to save herself from the punishment of feticide as she has
given some pills to the prosecutrix for abortion. It is further
submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from
inconsistencies and contradictions and the story put fourth by her
is highly improbable. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix
had a long pending grievance against co-accused Ajay @ Ajju
Signature Not Verified
Bail Appln. 3091/2020 Page 2 of 4
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:13.04.2021
17:22
and for the reasons best known to her she has implicated the
petitioner. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the
petitioner that the prosecutrix and her mother have been
examined and now there are no chances of tampering with the
evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has clean past
antecedents.
5. The application has been opposed by the Ld. APP for the
State. It is submitted by the Ld. APP that the allegations against
the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and the petitioner
alongwith his co-accused had gang raped the prosecutrix. It is
further submitted by the Ld. APP that there are specific
allegations against the petitioner and even if, there are some
contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim,
that cannot be the sole ground for discarding her testimony and
this is not the stage to credit or discredit the testimony of the
victim recorded in the Court. It is further submitted that the
prosecutrix was taken captive in a house where she was
repeatedly raped for 3 days.
6. In the instant case the prosecutrix has made specific
allegations against the petitioner and has even denied the
suggestion during the cross-examination that she was not raped
by the present petitioner. The contention of the counsel for the
petitioner that the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the
Signature Not Verified
Bail Appln. 3091/2020 Page 3 of 4
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:13.04.2021
17:22
prosecution and there are inconsistence and contradictions in her
statement have also no force in it as at this stage, it would not be
proper to discuss in detail any such contradictions or
inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim, otherwise the same
might prejudice the case of either of the parties. The counsel for
the petitioner during the course of the arguments has not been
able to point out any such glaring contradiction or inconsistency
which could at the threshold make the testimony of the victim
unreliable. The allegations against the petitioner are grave and
serious in nature and as per the prosecutrix she was held captive
and raped for 3 days and she has categorically deposed about the
role of the present petitioner. Therefore, in these circumstances,
no ground for bail is made out, the application is, therefore,
dismissed.
7. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the
expression of any opinion on the merits of this case.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
APRIL 09, 2021
Sumant
Signature Not Verified
Bail Appln. 3091/2020 Page 4 of 4
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:13.04.2021
17:22