Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 09.02.2022
% Pronounced on : 24.05.2022
+ BAIL APPLN. 3294/2021
RITESH @ RITESH ANAND @ RITESH CHOUDHARY
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Rana, Advocate with Mr.
Abhishek Rana, Mr. Bharat Gupta,
Mr. Ankit Rana and Mr. Nitish
Pander, Advocates.
Versus
STATE AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State
with SI Soni La, P.S.Rajinder Nagar.
Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate for the
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
O R D E R
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. This petition is filed by petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 237/2020 under
Sections 328/509/376/354/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Rajinder
Nagar, Delhi.
Bail Appln. 3294/2021 Page 1 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:26.05.2022
15:34:33
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 10.11.2020, the present FIR
was registered on the complaint of the prosecutrix alleging that she had
come to Delhi to prepare for UPSC Civil Services Examinations, and was
staying for the said purpose at Rajinder Nagar. The prosecutrix met the
petitioner who was also a UPSC aspirant. It is alleged that on 19.9.2019 the
petitioner took her to his room at 9/11, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi and
served her cold drink, and after consuming the same, she felt
unconsciousness and it is alleged that petitioner raped her. It is further
alleged that when the prosecutrix regained her consciousness, she felt pain
in her private parts, and on being asked by the petitioner as to what had
happened, the petitioner told her that he would marry her. It is further
alleged that after sometime the prosecutrix got pregnant and the petitioner
asked her to terminate the pregnancy, and also threatened her that he had
made video of the act, and if the prosecutrix would complaint to the police
he would make the video viral. It is alleged that on the pretext of making
video viral, the petitioner made further physical relations with her.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the
State, and learned counsel for the prosecutrix/complainant.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has
been falsely implicated, and the prosecutrix is a matured lady preparing for
the UPSC Examination, and was well aware about the consequences of her
acts. It is further submitted that relations were consensual in nature, and the
present FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix just to extort and harass the
Bail Appln. 3294/2021 Page 2 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:26.05.2022
15:34:33
petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner had transferred money to the
tune of Rs. 2 lacs in the account of the prosecutrix to help her financially on
her request, which can be verified from the bank account. It is further
submitted that the prosecutrix has filed false cases against other persons
also. It is further submitted that it is highly improbable that by drinking
same cold drink, the prosecutrix became unconscious and nothing happened
to the petitioner. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that
initially the petitioner had made up his mind to marry the prosecutrix out of
love and friendship but after some time he became fishy and enquired about
the character of the prosecutrix and came to know about her murky
background, and also that the prosecutrix is habitual in making false
criminal complaints against persons who do not bow to her extortion
demands. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has got registered the
FIR bearing no. 01/2018 under Section 376(2)(i)(M)/506 IPC against Sanket
Rajesh Kambe registered at P.S.Mautizapur (Gramin), Akola, Maharashtra.
It is further submitted that prosecutrix has also lodged a vindictive complaint
against four teachers under Sections 376/377/417/504/506 IPC read with
Section 65/67 IT Act when she was caught cheating in Examination and the
prosecutrix has also filed a complaint against the police officer under
Section 294/506 IPC. It is further submitted that when the petitioner realized
that prosecutrix had interest in getting the money from him, then the
petitioner filed complaints to National Commission for Woman and Delhi
Police on 28.08.2020, and FIR was registered against the prosecutrix under
Section 420/384/389/506(2) IPC. It is further submitted by the counsel for
Bail Appln. 3294/2021 Page 3 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:26.05.2022
15:34:33
the petitioner that whatsapp chats and photographs placed on record would
show that the relations were consensual in nature.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:
(a) Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Crl. Appeal No. 233/2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.
11218/2019);
(b) Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and Ors. Crl. Appeal No. 1443/2018 arising out of SLP (Crl)
No. 6532/2018;
(c) Akshay Manoj Jaisinghani Vs. The State of Maharashtra
(Bombay High Court), Bail Appln. No. 2221/2016;
(d) Deepak Gulati Vs. The State of Haryana Crl. Appeal No.
2322/2010 (Supreme Court);
(e) Rohit Chauhan Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appln. No.
311/2013;
(f) Nirmal Vaid Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Bail Appln. 1760/2012
and
(g) Kishan Singh (D) Thru LRs. Vs. Gurpal Singh and Ors. Crl.
Appeal No.1500/2010 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl) No. 5440/2009.
7. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned APP for the State
assisted by the counsel appearing for the complainant that on 19.09.2019,
when the offence was committed for the first time, the accused had himself
taken a little bit of cold drink in order to instill confidence in the prosecutrix
and thereafter the prosecutrix without doubting the intentions of the
petitioner drank the entire cold drink, after which she became unconscious
and was raped by the petitioner. It is further submitted that when the
Bail Appln. 3294/2021 Page 4 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:26.05.2022
15:34:33
prosecutrix confronted the petitioner, then in order to save himself from any
further action he gave a promise that he would marry her. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has also made her video on 19.9.2019, and on
the pretext of making it viral he again made physical relations with her. It is
further submitted that prosecutrix has returned most of the money which she
had borrowed from the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned APP
that petitioner was aware about the previous FIR lodged by the prosecutrix
for similar offence, and therefore, the petitioner took advantage of the
prosecutrix during her weak moments of emotions. It is further submitted
by the learned APP that the allegations are grave and serious in nature, and
the prosecutrix has even supported the case in her statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that this is simply not a case of false
promise of marriage rather before making any promise to marry the
petitioner has already established physical relationship with the prosecutrix
without her consent.
8. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the
petitioner but the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the case. In this case, physical relations were allegedly made first, and
subsequently there was a promise to marry which also did not fructify. It has
also been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that there is delay of
one year and two months in recording the FIR which makes the case of the
prosecutrix unreliable. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned APP
for the State that delay in lodging the FIR is not always fatal to the case of
Bail Appln. 3294/2021 Page 5 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:26.05.2022
15:34:33
the prosecution especially in sexual offence as the victim/her parents and
family members have to bear with that trauma and to decide amongst
themselves what action is to be taken.
9. In the instant case, according to the prosecutrix the physical relations
were made for the first time on 19.9.2019 by the petitioner by spiking the
drink of the prosecutrix as alleged by her. A bare perusal of the FIR shows
that victim, starting from 19.9.2019 and till the registration of the FIR i.e
10.11.2020 has explained in a very detailed and graphic manner the
sequence of events which took place between the said period and when
nothing materialized in the relationship then she had no option but to the get
the present FIR registered.
10. As far as the question of delay in registration of FIR and whether
events mentioned by the victim between the said period are true and false,
cannot be decided in this bail application, as the same are matter of trial, and
the testimony of the victim is yet to be recorded.
11. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
relationship between the prosecutrix and the petitioner was consensual in
nature, and the petitioner always wanted to marry the prosecutrix is
concerned, the prosecutrix in her statement given to the police as well as in
her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C has categorically stated
that they were friends and only after the incident of 19.9.2019, when the
petitioner made sexual relations with her when she was unconscious, only
then he had stated that he would marry her. As per the prosecutrix, the
Bail Appln. 3294/2021 Page 6 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:26.05.2022
15:34:33
petitioner further established sexual relations even thereafter with her by
threatening her that he would viral her video. It is also the contention of the
counsel for the petitioner that prosecutrix has lodged an FIR against one
person and she is a habitual extortionist.
12. As far as the question of similar FIR is concerned, that cannot be a
ground to discredit the prosecutrix or her statement made in the instant case.
As far as truthfulness of the statement is concerned, that is a matter of trial.
It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner has given more than Rs. 2 lacs in the account of the prosecutrix on
her asking. But according to the prosecutrix the same has mostly been
returned. This issue also cannot be decided in this bail application, however,
this alone does not show that relations were consensual and giving of loan of
any amount does not further the case of the petitioner. Counsel for the
petitioner has also during the course of arguments drawn the attention of this
Court to the whatsapp chat between the parties. A perusal of the whatsapp
chats shows that the parties were on talking terms, and were friendly which
is also admitted case of the prosecution but in my opinion that does not
mitigate the allegations made by the prosecutrix against the petitioner in her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, and first statement given to the police.
13. As far as the question of the petitioner having been released on
interim bail is concerned, the same also does not entitle the petitioner to
grant of regular bail, as the interim bail was granted to the petitioner on the
specific grounds which were raised in his interim bail application and the
Bail Appln. 3294/2021 Page 7 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:26.05.2022
15:34:33
allegations against the petitioner were not considered at that time and there
was no discussion on merits. Therefore, no ground for regular bail is made
out at this stage, the bail application is accordingly dismissed.
14. Nothing stated herein above shall tantamount to the expression of any
opinion on the merits of this case.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
MAY 24 , 2022/ ib
Bail Appln. 3294/2021 Page 8 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:26.05.2022
15:34:33