Full Text
Translation output
$-9, 10 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 704/2015
VIKRANT Petitioner
Through: Mr.Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate
BAIL APPLN. 704/2015
VIKRANT Petitioner
Through: Mr.Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE ( GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI) & ANR Respondents
Through: Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP for the State.
Mr.M.K.Gahlot, Advocate for complainant with complainant in person.
Through: Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP for the State.
Mr.M.K.Gahlot, Advocate for complainant with complainant in person.
BAIL APPLN. 709/2015
RAM BIR SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr.Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate
RAM BIR SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr.Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE (NOT OF DELHI) &ANR Respondents
Through: Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP forthe State.
Mr.M.K.Gahlot, Advocate for complainant with complainant in person.
Through: Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP forthe State.
Mr.M.K.Gahlot, Advocate for complainant with complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
25.05.2015 Although Vakalatnama has been filed by the counsel for the complainant but he has not filed the response.
Vide this common order I shall dispose of two applications filed by the husband and father-in-law of the complainant in caseFIRNo. 116/2015 under Section 376 IPG registered with police station Tilak Nagar. The allegations against the petitioner Vikrant who is the husband of the complainant is that he used to have voluntarily carnal intercourse without her consent and resistance throughout her stay at matrimonial home and
2015:DHC:10645 even during her pregnancy. She also discussed it with her mother-in-law but she was humiliated by her in filthy language. Taking advantage ofher vulnerability her father-in-law i.e., petitioner Rambir Singh came in the kitchen, hold her breast and inserted his finger into her vagina by forcefully removing her pyjamas. Sheresisted and shouted for help to which none of her in-laws family members came and in fact did not believe her and humiliated her by saying that she is of loose character. She didnot reportit to the police in order to save her marriage and because of society pressure.
Reliance was placed on Bail APPln.No.1588/2011 Rohit Vij vs. State passed on 20.09.2012.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the complainant made various complaints prior to the registration of this FIR and never levelled any allegations of anal sex by the husband. Such allegations have been levelled after one year of her leaving the matrimonial home. Even otherwise, no offence under Section 376 IPG is made out in view of exception appended to Section 375(1) by virtue of the amendment in
Cr.P.C.
The application is opposed by the complainant as well as the State by submitting that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of everything. As regards the father-in-law is concerned, there were allegations against him in the earlier complaints also and even if no allegation of anal sex was levelled against the husband that does not mean that the same are false. Since the anal sex by the husband was without the consent of the prosecutrix as such, the ease does not fall within exception of Section 375(1) IPG. Moreover, Section 377 IPG is also attracted in the instant case. As such, keeping in view ofthe seriousness of the allegations, petitioner be not released on bail.
Needless to say, the allegations are very serious in nature. It is not clear from the order of bail application 1588/2011 as to under which
Section the FIR was registered. Even otherwise, facts and circumstances of each ease have to be seen and cannot be made a precedent for passing an order in another case. Suffice it to say that the allegations made by complainant find reiteration in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Besides registration of FIR under Section 376 IPG, it was also registered under Section 377 IPG. That being so, I do not deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail. As such, applications are dismissed.
SUNITA GUPTA, J MAY 25, 2015 mb
25.05.2015 Although Vakalatnama has been filed by the counsel for the complainant but he has not filed the response.
Vide this common order I shall dispose of two applications filed by the husband and father-in-law of the complainant in caseFIRNo. 116/2015 under Section 376 IPG registered with police station Tilak Nagar. The allegations against the petitioner Vikrant who is the husband of the complainant is that he used to have voluntarily carnal intercourse without her consent and resistance throughout her stay at matrimonial home and
2015:DHC:10645 even during her pregnancy. She also discussed it with her mother-in-law but she was humiliated by her in filthy language. Taking advantage ofher vulnerability her father-in-law i.e., petitioner Rambir Singh came in the kitchen, hold her breast and inserted his finger into her vagina by forcefully removing her pyjamas. Sheresisted and shouted for help to which none of her in-laws family members came and in fact did not believe her and humiliated her by saying that she is of loose character. She didnot reportit to the police in order to save her marriage and because of society pressure.
Reliance was placed on Bail APPln.No.1588/2011 Rohit Vij vs. State passed on 20.09.2012.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the complainant made various complaints prior to the registration of this FIR and never levelled any allegations of anal sex by the husband. Such allegations have been levelled after one year of her leaving the matrimonial home. Even otherwise, no offence under Section 376 IPG is made out in view of exception appended to Section 375(1) by virtue of the amendment in
Cr.P.C.
The application is opposed by the complainant as well as the State by submitting that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of everything. As regards the father-in-law is concerned, there were allegations against him in the earlier complaints also and even if no allegation of anal sex was levelled against the husband that does not mean that the same are false. Since the anal sex by the husband was without the consent of the prosecutrix as such, the ease does not fall within exception of Section 375(1) IPG. Moreover, Section 377 IPG is also attracted in the instant case. As such, keeping in view ofthe seriousness of the allegations, petitioner be not released on bail.
Needless to say, the allegations are very serious in nature. It is not clear from the order of bail application 1588/2011 as to under which
Section the FIR was registered. Even otherwise, facts and circumstances of each ease have to be seen and cannot be made a precedent for passing an order in another case. Suffice it to say that the allegations made by complainant find reiteration in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Besides registration of FIR under Section 376 IPG, it was also registered under Section 377 IPG. That being so, I do not deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail. As such, applications are dismissed.
SUNITA GUPTA, J MAY 25, 2015 mb
JUDGMENT