Pyare Lal v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 711/2021 dated 09.10.2021, registered at Police Station Nangloi, for offence under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

2. Briefly stated, the FIR in the present case was registered pursuant to the information received from the mother of the victim aged 16 years that she was missing. During investigation, on 01.08.2022, the complainant informed the Investigating Officer that the victim was admitted at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. It is alleged that the victim was found to be admitted in the hospital with another name and had given birth to a child on 29.07.2022.

3. Thereafter, counselling of the victim was conducted and statement under Section 161 of the CrPC was recorded wherein she stated that on 08.10.2021, her neighbour – Pinki, asked her to come to her house and gave her tea to drink subsequent to which she fell unconscious and was kept in the house for two days. She stated that when she regained her consciousness, her neighbour – Pinki made her get married with the accused/applicant, who thereafter took her to some unknown place and sexually assaulted her due to which she got pregnant and delivered a baby.

4. On 06.08.2022, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC before the learned Trial Court wherein she reiterated the allegations made in her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC. The proof of age was verified from the concerned school as per which date of birth of the victim was found to be 07.04.2005.

5. Subsequently, on 04.09.2022, the applicant was arrested.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has also been filed and no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further custody.

7. He submitted that the co-accused – Pinki has already been released on bail vide order dated 17.01.2023 passed by this Court however, the applicant/accused is in custody since 04.09.2022 without even committing any offence. He submitted that the applicant has deep roots in the society and has clean antecedents.

8. It is further submitted that the victim and the applicant were in love and wanted to marry each other, however the parents of the victim were against the marriage. Further, it has been stated that the victim forced the applicant to get married, due to which the applicant and the victim got married legally for which the signatures of the victim were obtained by an Advocate in furtherance of performing marriage formalities. Further, it has been submitted that both the applicant and the victim were living happily till the birth of their daughter on 29.07.2022, however, when some disputes arose between the parties, the victim in collusion with her mother, falsely implicated the applicant and his family members in the present case.

9. The learned counsel submitted that the age of the victim as per her Aadhar Card is 05.07.2000 and she was major at the time of the alleged incident.

10. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State assisted by the learned counsel for the prosecutrix opposed the present bail applicant. It is submitted that the offence alleged against the applicant is a serious offence and hence, he is not entitled to bail.

11. They submitted that the victim was a minor at the time of the commission of the offences as per her school records.

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has consistently emphasised the factors to be taken into account when considering bail application, which include: (i) the nature or gravity of the offense; (ii) the character of the evidence and circumstances unique to the accused; (iii) the likelihood of the accused evading justice; (iv) the potential impact of the release on prosecution witnesses and its societal repercussions; and (v) the probability of the accused engaging in tampering.

13. It is pertinent to note that the prosecutrix, despite alleging wrongful confinement, stayed with the applicant for nearly a year and made no complaints during her alleged visits to medical establishments. Notably, as per her own statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC before the learned Trial Court, she mentioned attending a Mohalla Clinic where she was treated by a doctor, yet no complaint regarding wrongful confinement or abuse was made at that time or on any prior occasion.

14. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the prosecutrix’s age is a point of contention due to conflicting records. Her Aadhar Card indicates she was of legal age at the time of the alleged incident, whereas her school records indicate otherwise. This discrepancy raises doubt and is a subject for trial, and cannot be looked into at this stage. While the veracity and strength of the allegations against the applicant would be tested during the course of trial, the benefit of such doubt cannot be denied to the applicant at the stage of considering application for bail.

15. It is trite that long period of incarceration is an important factor to be kept in mind while considering the application for bail. It cannot be denied that the applicant is in custody since 04.09.2022 and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.