Mohd. Atikui Rahman v. Govt. of NCT Delhi

1. Videthis common order, I shall dispose oftwo bail applications bearing Nos. 1514/2013 and 1515/2013 u/s 439 Cr. P.C. filed by Mohd. Isharafil @ Raj and Mohd. Atikui Rahman respectively as both the bail applications have been filed in case FIR No. 449/2012 u/s 376 (g) IPG, PS SubhashPlace. 2013:DHC:6892

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the prosecutrix made a complaint alleging therein that she had come from Jharkhand for earning her livelihood. Her young sister Vineeta also came to Delhi. Mohd. Isharafil @Raj is running aplacement agency in the name of Deepika Placement Services at 4^^ Floor, Shakarpur Delhi-34 with his friend Atiqui Rehman. They did not give money to her sister. On 21'^ November, 2012, she reached the placement agency for taking earned wages ofher sister where both the accused met her. She demanded ^ wages of her sister. During discussion about salary, it became late night. Deepika, wife of Isharafil gave her food and she was sent to sleep in other room. During midnight both the accused entered her room and committed rape upon her. She became scared and since it was late night, she kept silent. Inthe morning, she made a call at 100 number from her mobile. Police reached the spot and took her to police station where she gave her statement. This statement culminated inregistration ofFIR 449/2012 u/s 376 (g) IPG against the petitioners.

3. It is submitted bythe learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is running a placement agency and there was a dispute regarding salary due to which this false case was registered against them. The prosecutrix as well as her sister have not supported the case of prosecution at all. Even the medical evidence does not support the prosecution. The FSL report also does not incriminate the accused in any manner. He also referred to the statement of the Head Constable for showing that although as per the DD, the information was received at 7.35 am regarding commission of rape by three persons, however, the Head Constable has deposed in the Court that when she reached the police station at about 7:00 am, the complainant was already sitting in the police station along with the 10 of the case. As such, it is submitted that the accused be released on bail who are in jail for the last more than one year.

4. Learned APP fairly conceded that the prosecutrix as well as her sister have not supported the case of prosecution and besides them, there is no other public witness. It was also not disputed that so far as the medical evidence is concerned, the same does not support the prosecution except for the fact that in the alleged history, it was mentioned that history was given of sexual assault by persons of placement agency.

5. The allegations although are very serious in nature, however, the material witnesses, viz., prosecutrix and the sister of the prosecutrix have already been examined by the prosecution, both of whom have chosen not to support the case of prosecution and now only formal witnesses remain to be examined. Under the circumstances, petitioners are admitted to bail, subject to their fulfilling the following conditions

(i) Furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(ii) They shall not leave the country without the prior permission ofthe Court concerned;

(iii) They shall not tamper with evidence;

The applications are accordingly disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master. JMnrI- [TA GUPTA,. SUNITA DECEMBER 18,2013 rs