Meenakshi v. Respondent

1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No.294/2013 registered at the instance of the prosecutrix (niece of Mr. Ramesh Moriya and Smt. Bimla Devi, who are her chacha and chachi, and cousin of Ms.Meenakshi) under Sections 376/506/34 IPG at PS Aman Vihar, Delhi.

2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have been framed in the present case and they have no role to play in the entire matter. He submits that the prosecutrix had eloped with one Ravi and BAIL APPLN. 1364/2013 &connected matters. ^ ^ 2013:DHC:6906 married him on 29.4.2011 without the knowledge of her parents, whereafter she had returned to her parents home. Subsequently, the parents of the prosecutrix came to know about this marriage when police had visited their residence and informed them that the prosecutrix had sent a written information to the police that she had married Ravi of her own free will and no action may be taken against him.

3. When the aforesaid information came to the knowledge of the parents of the prosecutrix, they had told her to leave their house and live with her husband. Thereafter, the prosecutrix had started residing with her husband at a premises very close to her parental home and remained there for almost eight months. In that duration, the father of the prosecutrix had issued a public notice disowning her. However, one day, the prosecutrix left her husband's home and shifted to her maternal uncle's residence at District Barabanki, UP. As recently as on 16.7.2013, a FIR was registered wherein the prosecutrix had stated that she was harassed and gang raped by her husband, one Rakesh Moriya (brother-in-law of Ramesh Moriya) and one Nanku @Sanjay (brother-in-law of Rakesh Moriya) and that Simla (her mother-in-law) and Ms.Meenakshi(her cousin) were a party to the criminal conspiracy BAIL APPLN. 1364/2013 &connected matters. 2of 5 hatched by all the above persons and they had used the prosecutrix for flesh trade for their livelihood.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submi.ts that the petitioners in Bail Applications No.1368/2013 and 1525/2013 are the uncle and aunt of the prosecutrix, who live in a house adjoining to her parental home and they had no role to play in her marriage with the aforesaid Ravi, with whom she had eloped. He further states that when the prosecutrix had left her matrimonial home in December 2011, her husband had filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Division Bench of this Court, registered as WP(Crl.)No.l031/2013, which was disposed of on 18.7.2013 with the observation that the prosecutrix had stated that she did not want to stay with him as she had been forced into the marriage by her uncle and aunt.

5. Astatus report has been filed by the State. Learned APP for the State submits that repeated efforts were made by the lO to contact the prosecutrix on her mobile phone calling upon her to join the investigation, but she did not join the investigation. Finally, she had appeared before the 10 with her maternal uncle on 5.8.2013. During the investigation, she was medically examined, but nothing material has emerged in the course of the said examination. In her statement BAIL APPLN. 1364/2013 &connected matters. ^ recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., tine prosecutrix had stated that her uncle and aunt had forced her to marry the aforesaid Ravi. She also claimed that IMs.Meenakshi, the petitioner in Bail Application No.1364/2013 had an illicit relationship with Rakesh Moriya and at the same time, Rakesh Moriya and two other co-accused(Ravi and Nanku) had forcibly established a physical relationship with the prosecutrix and her cousin Ms.Meenakshi and they had taken their photographs without her permission. It is stated that the prosecutrix has now rejoined the investigation on 10.9.2013.

6. Learned APP for the State submits that the prosecutrix had approached the District and Sessions Court on 31.8.2012 with a complaint and the matter was then assigned to the learned MM, at whose directions, the subject FIR came to be registered on 16.7.2013. He states that all the petitioners have been interrogated and they have been joining the investigation as and when called.

7. The Court has been informed by the counsel for the petitioners that Ramesh Moriya is a Government servant working with the MTNL and his wife, Smt. Bimla is a homemaker. It is also stated that Ms.Meenakshi is a married lady residing at her matrimonial home in UP and has given birth to a baby a couple of months ago. BAILAPPLN. 1364/2013 &connected matters. 4of 5

8. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is ordered that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail, subject to each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ?30,000/- with one local surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/arresting officer. Needless to state that the petitioners shall fully co-operate in the investigation and will not create any hindrance or impediment during the course of investigation. Further, the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate any person who is sought to be questioned by the respondent/State and they shall not approach the prosecutrix.

9. The petitions are disposed of. Dasti.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 sk/mk BAIL APPLN. 1364/2013 & connected matters. HinA KOHLI, J