Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIKAS MALU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Jain, Mr. R. K. Thakur, Mr. Shubhankar Jha, Mr. Ashish Bansal and Mr. Sambhav Jain, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with Insp. Manjusha, PS R. K. Puram.
Mr. Rajender Chhabra and Mr. Rajesh Chhabra, Advocates for the complainant along with complainant in person.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 525/2022 under Sections 323/354/376/377/506/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station Kapashera.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that on 15.11.2022, the complainant filed a written complaint at Police Station Kapashera alleging therein that she was raped and threatened by her husband (petitioner herein) and coaccused Vineet Malu (son of petitioner herein). Further in the said written complaint it is also alleged that she was molested and beaten by two daughters of petitioner and on the said complaint, the present FIR No.525/2022 was registered under Sections 323/354/376/377/34 IPC against the petitioner, his son and his two daughters.
3. It is alleged that in February 2019, the petitioner called the complainant for some event discussions at A-15, Pushpanjali Farm, Bijwasan, Delhi and offered her a hard drink which she refused and thereafter, the petitioner felt offended and started mercilessly beating her and forcibly raped her at the above said place and made video of the incident.
4. It is further alleged that when the complainant refused to surrender before the present petitioner, it was then the present petitioner proposed the complainant for marriage. It is further alleged that on 13.03.2019, the court marriage was solemnized before SDM, Jhandewalan. It is further alleged that on the above said day, the present petitioner forcibly made unnatural physical relations with the complainant.
5. It is further alleged that the present petitioner forced the complainant to sleep on the same bed alongwith Vineet (son of the petitioner) by her side and petitioner on the other side, due to which she felt very uncomfortable as she was sandwiched between both of them and she would feel an unwelcomed touch and the son of the petitioner always took advantage of this and touched her inappropriately during whole night.
6. It is further alleged that complainant could always feel a change in the behavioural aspect of Vineet (son of the petitioner) who deliberately and intentionally used to touch the complainant inappropriately and many times she asked him to restrict his movements but he always ignored her. On 11.08.2022, the complainant made the petitioner aware about the bad behaviour of his children and also made him hear the recordings. It was then on 14.08.2022, daughters of the petitioner molested the complainant by ordering her to walk on her hands and legs like an animal and when complainant refused the same, then Harshita (daughter of the petitioner) said "Chal Saali Ko Maza Chakhate Hain, Hamare Order Ko Mana Kar Rahi Hai" and thereafter both the daughters of the petitioner pinned down the complainant to the floor and further Sakshi (daughter of petitioner) held both the hands of the complainant and Harshita started slapping on her face and when the complainant became semi-conscious, Sakshi spread her legs and she further inserted her middle finger in vagina of complainant and thereafter forcibly put those fingers in the mouth of complainant.
7. It is further alleged that on 17.10.2022 son of the petitioner, namely, Vineet Malu entered the room of the complainant, forcibly held her and forced her to sit on his lap, and when she refused and tried to escape, the son of the petitioner raped her and also made the video of the incident and threatened her not to disclose this incident to anyone otherwise she will have to face the consequences.
8. It is further alleged that the complainant was continuously threatened by the petitioner and his relatives of dire consequences that she would be killed through accident or though professional murderers and they also threatened her to make the video of the incident viral. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present case was registered.
9. I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner as well as Ld. APP for the State. The counsel for the victim has also assisted the Ld. APP and made his submissions and also filed reply to the bail application. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the victim/complainant handed over a set of documents in the Court in support of his arguments, copy of which was handed over to the Ld. counsel for the petitioner as well as Ld. APP for the State. I have also perused the Status Reports filed by the State and the records of this case.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the bare perusal of the FIR clearly shows that it has been filed belatedly with the sole aim to involve the petitioner in a false and fabricated case. He submitted that even prior to the allegations levied by the prosecutrix of alleged forceful rape by the petitioner in 2019, she was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner since 2016 during which she extensively travelled abroad with the petitioner and even stayed in several hotels sharing same rooms, which shows that the prosecutrix was well acquainted with the petitioner and the subsequent allegations levied by the prosecutrix in the present FIR are prima facie baseless and fabricated. He further submitted that the travel history of the prosecutrix and her stay in the hotel rooms with the petitioner prior to her marriage with the petitioner shows that the prosecutrix and petitioner were in a live-inrelation and the prosecutrix was well aware of the family and business background of the petitioner prior to her marriage as well. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix after being involved in a live-inrelationship with the petitioner for years, had decided without any threat, pressure or coercion to marry the petitioner and therefore, the allegation that she was forced to marry within one month of alleged rape is an afterthought and is nothing but a figment of her imagination. He further submitted that as per the victim, she was raped in the month of February 2019 by the petitioner but despite that she went with the petitioner to attend Celebrity Cricket League (CCL) at Chandigarh on 28.02.2019 and partied with the celebrities, which clearly shows that the allegations of rape are false and fabricated.
11. He further submitted that prior to refusal by the petitioner to give prosecutrix a sum of 9,00,000 USD for her business in June 2022, no complaint was ever filed by her against the petitioner and his children and it is only after petitioner's refusal to give her money for a separate business in India that the prosecutrix started planning to implicate the entire family to extort money from the petitioner and in pursuance of her well concocted plan, she waited till the minor son of the petitioner attained majority in order to file the present complaint. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of 3 years and 10 months in lodging the present FIR which creates doubt on the genuineness and veracity of the version of the prosecutrix.
12. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the photographs and videos of the prosecutrix shows her happy married life with the petitioner but her over ambition and greed for money, had ruined the matrimonial life and she has filed the present false and frivolous case to extort money from the petitioner. He further submitted that the Ld. ASJ failed to consider the fact that when the prosecutrix is in a consensual relationship with the petitioner since 2016 and is in a live-in-relation with him in Dubai, then the allegations of the alleged rape by the petitioner in February, 2019 are prima facie false and baseless.
13. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared before the Ld. MM on 30.01.2023, has joined the investigation on 01.02.2023, 02.02.2023 and 07.02.2023 and has fully cooperated in the investigation which is evident from the status report filed by the IO before the Ld. Session Judge, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. He submitted that the petitioner himself wrote a mail to the ACP concerned on 27.12.2022 expressing his willingness to join the investigation and thereafter, presented himself at the police station and also, joined the investigation. He further submitted that without looking into the material on record and assigning any cogent reasons, the Ld. Session Court directed the petitioner to surrender his passport to the IO and erred in holding that as the petitioner is an influential person, there is possibility of threatening the witnesses and influencing investigation, despite the fact that the petitioner has always cooperated in the investigation and has submitted all documents in his possession. He further submitted that the petitioner on his own accord joined the investigation on three dates and has fully cooperated in investigation which shows the good conduct of the petitioner.
14. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix had not initially disclosed the make of the phone allegedly used in making video in February 2019 in her complaint, however, subsequently she stated that it was Huawei Phone. He submitted that the phone which the prosecutrix has alleged to be used by the petitioner in making video, was in fact purchased by the petitioner in January, 2019 for the prosecutrix and the phone was in her sole possession in which she was using her own SIM since the date of purchase, furthermore, he submitted that no investigation has been conducted by the IO in this aspect. He further submitted that the two FIRs bearing no. 526/2022 u/s 354/354A/354B/506/509/34 IPC and 86/2023 u/s 8 POCSO Act were lodged by the children of the petitioner against the prosecutrix on account of her unlawful and immoral actions towards the children of the petitioner. The petitioner was unaware of such behaviour of the prosecutrix, but after she left the matrimonial home on 17.10.2022, the fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner by his children. He further submitted that perusal of the status report filed by the Investigating officer on 09.02.2023 reveals that the prosecutrix had submitted 6 CDs which were played and checked by the IO, however, nothing in support of the prosecutrix's version was revealed thereof.
15. Lastly, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he has already submitted all the evidences which were in his possession i.e., his phone, hard drive containing CCTV footages and video and other relevant documents and thus, there is no risk of tampering with the evidence by the petitioner, furthermore, petitioner is a respectable person having deep roots in the society and there is no likelihood of him fleeing from justice.
16. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the following judgments: P. Chidambaram vs. CBI [2020 13 SCC 337] Arnab Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2020 SCC Online SC 964] State of Maharashtra vs. Nainmal Punjaji Shah [(1969) 3 SCC 904] Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat [(2016) 1 SCC(Cri) 240] Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I, [Crl. A. l79 of 2009] D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 216] Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP [AIR 1994 SC 1349] Court on its own Motion vs. State (Criminal Reference NO. 4/2017) Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors vs. Public Prosecutor [1978 (2) SCR 371] Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others vs. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] Sushila Aggarwala &Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi [(2020)5 SCC 1]
17. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued on the lines of the Status Reports dated 28.03.2023 and dated 07.05.2023. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature.
18. The counsel appearing for the complainant has denied that the complainant joined the company of the petitioner as receptionist on 04.04.2009. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the petitioner divorced his previous wife from whom he has 3 children and they all are harassing, maltreating and sexually assaulting the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant/victim was never in relationship with the petitioner as alleged and she was only looking after petitioner's company as an event supervisor. It is further submitted that shifting of the petitioner to Dubai is only an eye wash to defraud the Income Tax and Excise authority of India and the complainant never shifted to Dubai and never lived together with the petitioner from September 2017 to September 2020.
19. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the complainant was in the same flight with the petitioner for the purpose of an event supervision and she was not alone and other team persons were also there. He further submitted that in the month of February 2019, the petitioner offered hard drink to prosecutrix, raped her and made a video of the incident, and thereafter by giving threats married the
20. It is further submitted that the petitioner forced the complainant to marry him by threatening to make the video of rape viral and this fact was known to the children of the petitioner as in one of the audio son of the petitioner has admitted the same. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the audio & transcript of the same has been provided to the IO and even the video of forceful sex and merciless beatings have also been given to the IO. He further submitted that marriage was solemnized by threatening the complainant on 13.03.2019 at SDM office Jhandewalan, Delhi and a party was thrown by the petitioner on the same night at The Grand, Vasant Kunj. He further submitted that on 07.05.2019 the victim was forced to sleep in between the petitioner and his son Vineet Malu. He further submitted that the son of the petitioner used to take drugs at the age of 15 and 16 and is a well built boy who used to touch the complainant inappropriately. He further submitted that the petitioner is a hard core alcoholic and drug addict and is suffering from liver cirrhosis because of which his legs always remain swollen.
21. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the petitioner's net worth is more than Rs. 1,00,000 crores so there was no need for the complainant to leave the company of the petitioner and the story of demand of 9,00,000 USD is imaginary. He further submitted that the complainant was raped by the son of the petitioner on 17.10.2022 and her video was made by using additional second I-Phone 13 Pro and whenever the complainant used to complain to the petitioner about the conduct of his son Vineet, no action was taken by him. He further submitted that in one of the audio recording which is on record, the petitioner admitted about the sexual inclination of his son towards the
22. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that on 21.10.2022, one Chattar Singh who is brother of the petitioner threatened the complainant not to file any complaint against the son of the petitioner, namely Vineet. He further submitted that notice U/s 9 of HMA has been sent to the complainant with the sole aim that she should not report the rape committed on her by Vineet Malu. He further submitted that after the incident of 17.10.2022, the complainant ran from pillar to post to file the complaint but all in vain, so ultimately she had to e-mail to the Commissioner of Police and her complaint was then received on 15.11.2022 and with the intervention of the Metropolitan Magistrate, the FIR was registered on 20.11.2022. He further submitted that in order to pressurize the complainant the elder daughter of the petitioner filed a false FIR against her and her arguing counsel.
23. He further submitted that the petitioner has even got issued the defamation notice of Rs. 100 Crores in order to terrorize the complainant so that she may withdraw the present FIR. He further submitted that the petitioner is a foreign national and in case he is admitted to bail, he will flee from justice.
24. He further submitted that when the complainant told the petitioner about the illicit relations of his daughter Sakshi Malu with one of the friend of the petitioner, then all the three children became aggressive towards the complainant. He further submitted that the HUAWEI phone of the petitioner is not yet recovered. He further submitted that the false complaint under POCSO Act was given by the son of the petitioner on 17.12.2022 but despite that the petitioner was messaging the complainant to rejoin his company which shows the falsehood of the FIR lodged by the son of the petitioner and it is also submitted that the complainant never shifted to Dubai permanently. He further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and the petitioner is a flight risk. Ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon Dinesh @ Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan reported as AIR 2006 SC
1267.
25. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by the Ld. counsels for both the parties.
26. As far as the judgments relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner are concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in those judgments with regard to the grant of bail.
27. Now, it is a settled proposition of law that every case is to be dealt with, based on its individual factual matrix and no set principle or strait jacket formula can be applied, especially while dealing with bail matters where only a prima facie view can be taken to appreciate the facts under a given case.
28. The severity of the allegations is not the only consideration which should result in denial or the grant of bail to the petitioner. The totality of facts and circumstances deserves to be seen before a person is granted or denied the anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court in case titled Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] has laid down that the Court should be loath to reject the grant of anticipatory bail inasmuch as it impinges on the personal liberty of a person. Meaning thereby, unless and until there is an imminent and a great imperative to have a custodial interrogation of an accused, the anticipatory bail does not deserve to be denied.
29. Learned counsel for the complainant/victim has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “Dinesh @ Bhuddha Vs. State of Rajasthan” reported as AIR 2006 SC 1267. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in the judgment “supra” relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the victim/complainant that the sexual crime cases should be dealt with utmost sensitivity, but as already discussed hereinabove, each criminal case devolves on its own facts and no doubt, sexual offence cases are serious offences but it is not that the facts and circumstances of the case are to be totally overlooked.
30. In the present case, as per the FIR, the victim and the petitioner are husband and wife, and the marriage was solemnized between them on 13.03.2019 before SDM, Jhandewalan, New Delhi.
31. According to the victim, she was raped by the petitioner for the first time in February 2019 at the house of the petitioner as she was called there for the first time for event discussions. The victim has even failed to give any details like date of event, name of event and where the event was supposed to be held for which she was called by the petitioner at his home for discussions. The petitioner, as per the victim, offered her a hard drink which was refused by her, and on this refusal according to the victim, the petitioner felt offended and mercilessly gave beatings to her and forcibly raped her and made a video of the same.
32. According to the victim, this was the first incident of rape committed upon her by the petitioner, but this incident was never reported by her to the police or to any of her family members, or even to her mother. According to the victim, she was mercilessly beaten and raped but despite that, she never visited any hospital for her treatment with regard to the merciless beatings given to her as alleged.
33. It is also the contention of the victim that the act of rape was videographed by the petitioner. On this point, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is highly impossible for a person to commit rape and make a video of the said act at the same time by himself, has force in it.
34. The victim in the present case, is a grown-up lady of more than 30 years of age, and though she has not stated that she resisted the rape by the petitioner but definitely when she used the word „forcibly‟ so she must have resisted the rape and one can very well imagine in such a scenario, it seems highly impossible for a person to commit rape and make a video of rape simultaneously by himself.
35. In this condition, if the petitioner is successful in making the said video then he would also be seen in the video, and in that case, that video would be fatal to the petitioner as well, especially in the circumstance when it is the case of the victim that the petitioner has himself made the video and also it is pertinent to note that the case of the victim is that at that time she was not unconscious. According to the petitioner thereafter they got married before the SDM, Jhandewalan, and thereafter her tale of horror began in her matrimonial home where she was subjected to unnatural sexual atrocities by the petitioner who used to take sexual drugs and injections, and according to the victim herself, the petitioner at one time became impotent and was unable to perform sexual activities without the help of drugs and by the end of 2021 even with the help of drugs and injections he became fully impotent.
36. It is pertinent to mention here that victim never complained about the atrocities allegedly being committed upon her by the petitioner and her son and daughters as alleged in the FIR. There is nothing on record to suggest that the victim had no access to the mobile phone or that her movements were restricted in any sense. So, she had ample opportunities to bring the atrocities being committed upon her by the petitioner, and her family members to the authorities as well as to her mother.
37. It becomes obvious from the reading of the FIR that she was being mercilessly beaten in the house of the petitioner, his son and two daughters, in these circumstances, the least what was expected from the victim is that she could have clicked her photographs showing tell tales of merciless beatings given to her and she could have sent those photos or videos to her family members including her mother or could have shown the same to the IO, but nothing of that sort ever happened. Neither the victim complained to the police or to her relatives regarding the condition in which she was living nor she got herself medically examined even once. According to the victim, she married the petitioner in order to save herself from the stigma of rape and her video going viral, and in order to save herself she confined herself in her house at Shalimar Bagh, and this act of her resulted in a marriage proposal from the petitioner. According to the victim, on 11.08.2022, she had made the petitioner aware about the bad behavior of his children and also made him to hear the recordings, so when the petitioner was having access to her phone and according to her she made recordings of the bad behavior of the petitioner‟s children, then it is not understood as to what prevented her from clicking her photographs/selfies to show the signs of merciless beatings given to her in the matrimonial home.
38. As already mentioned hereinabove, with regard to the incident of rape, which according to the victim, was videographed by the petitioner himself, to which counsel for the petitioner submitted that simultaneous happening of both acts of rape by the petitioner as well as making of video of the act by him is next to impossible. In my opinion, this contention of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner has force in it and it would be difficult to perform the two acts simultaneously, otherwise also this could be dealt with at the time of trial.
39. According to the victim, one of the reasons for the aggressiveness of the children of the petitioner is that she complained to the petitioner about the illicit relations of one of his daughters with one of the friend of petitioner. Now again this allegation is a mere bald allegation bereft of any details.
40. The victim had appeared before the SDM for registration of her marriage as she was under threat but it is pertinent to note here that if she was under threat, she could have made a complaint to the SDM when she appeared for the first time before a senior government official but she had failed to do so.
41. The victim had also made allegations against the son of the petitioner that he raped her on 17.10.2022 by mercilessly beating her but again on the said very date she had gone to meet her mother but she never made any complaint to her mother and it appears that her mother never noticed any signs of merciless beatings which according to the victim were given to her by the son of the petitioner.
42. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the victim deliberately waited for the son of the petitioner to turn major and only thereafter she had made the allegations of rape against him, would again be a matter of trial and all these contention can be raised by the victim and the petitioner during the course of the trial.
43. The allegations against the daughters of the petitioner that on 14.08.2022, they gave her merciless beatings and made her to walk like an animal and even one of his daughter inserted her finger in her vagina and thereafter put those finger in the mouth of the victim, but again no complaint was made by the victim to anyone and it has only been contended that she was closely guarded and warned but there is nothing in the FIR to show that she was not having access to her mobile phone and the only reason given by the victim for not taking any action is that she was afraid that her video would be made viral. But in any case, when the victim approached the police and filed the present complaint, at that time also the alleged video of the victim was with the petitioner, but still she lodged the complaint.
44. Now, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the victim has submitted that the victim had handed over six CDs to the IO which contained audio and video recordings with regard to the sexual assault committed by the petitioner and his son and daughters. Learned counsel for the victim, during the course of arguments, placed on record certain transcripts with regard to the conversation between the victim, the petitioner, sister of the petitioner, and other relatives. The said documents and one pen drive were given to the IO when the case was being heard on 19.04.2023. In this regard, a status report has been filed which has been relied upon by learned APP for the State.
45. As per the additional status report, the audio and video of recordings were edited clippings of long recordings. Para 3 of the additional status report dated 07.05.2023 reads as follows:-
46. As per the above status report, a pen drive has been sent to FSL, Rohini, and notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C was replied to by the complainant through WhatsApp dated 30.04.2023, but no relevant/further information was provided by the victim. The additional status report however records that from the audio and video recordings no conclusive inference could be drawn but the conversation appears to be with regard to the post-marriage strained relationship. As per the additional status report, dated 07.05.2023, the investigation in the case is almost complete.
47. Learned counsel for the victim has neither placed on record nor supplied to the IO the original source of the conversation, the transcript of which has been relied upon by him.
48. According to the petitioner, the victim joined the company of the petitioner on 04.04.2009 as a receptionist and continued thereafter, and it was only after the petitioner obtained a divorce from his first wife, they started seeing each other and had a consensual relationship. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the victim shifted to Dubai on 29.09.2017 on employment visa in the company of the petitioner, and thereafter they started living together, and also travelled to Vienna and Budapest where they shared and remained in the same hotel, so according to the petitioner, they were known to each other from 04.04.2009, and were in a relationship prior to the incident of February 2019.
49. As per the status report dated 28.03.2023, the petitioner has been joining the investigation and has even submitted his passport alongwith his mobile phone-make HTC which was used by him in the year 2019. As per the status report, nothing incriminating was found in the said mobile phone. The status report further reveals that the petitioner and the victim were in touch from 2008 till 2009 and they were in a relationship since 2017 and in support of this, as per the status report, the petitioner has submitted a bunch of documents containing air tickets, bookings of hotel accommodations, salary details and employment contract of the victim, copy of the foreign passport of the petitioner, marriage certificate along with the hard disk containing videos of parties, functions and trips etc. of the petitioner with the victim. The status report further reveals that as far as the allegations of the victim that the petitioner used Huawei phone for recording obscene videos, the said allegations have been denied by the petitioner who disclosed that the said phone was procured in 2019 but is in the possession of his wife i.e the victim. The status report further reveals that the victim was confronted with the documents produced by the petitioner and she had not denied her travel with the petitioner and stated that the said travel was only for event related purposes, and she was never a worker of the petitioner and the petitioner opened some company in her name to avoid tax liability.
50. There is one more important aspect of this case. According to the victim it was in the month of February 2019, when she went to the house of the petitioner, she was raped by him but when the petitioner joined the investigation, he handed over a pen drive containing 30 photographs which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo dated 14.04.2023. As per the seizure memo the pen drive contained 30 photographs of Celebrity Cricket League Chandigarh, 2019 and the photographs are of 28.02.2019, where the petitioner and the victim are seen alongwith other celebrities in the party.
51. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that out of these 30 photographs, 20 photographs were captured on 01.03.2019 and 10 were captured on 28.02.2019 so as to contend that when according to the victim she was raped in the month of February 2019, where was the occasion for her to go to the Celebrity Cricket League Chandigarh alongwith the petitioner which started from 27.02.2019. The victim has not mentioned the date as to when she went to the house of the petitioner in the month of February 2019, however, the perusal of the seizure memo shows that there are photographs of the petitioner and the victim of the event Celebrity Cricket League on 28.02.2019 and 01.03.2019, where both of them can be seen attending the party with the celebrities. So if the allegations of rape and merciless beatings are to be believed, why the victim has not mentioned the date, on which she went to the house of the petitioner in the month of February 2019 and she has even concealed the fact that on the last date of February 2019, she has accompanied the petitioner to Chandigarh to attend the Celebrity Cricket League and partied there alongwith celebrities. Therefore, the allegations of rape and merciless beatings given to her by the petitioner in the month of February 2019 does not inspire confidence as during the last days of February 2019, the victim had accompanied the petitioner to Chandigarh to attend Celebrity Cricket League (CCL) and partied with the celebrities. So if the incident of February, 2019 is to be believed then in my opinion, if the petitioner raped the victim forcibly in the month of February 2019 then it is difficult to digest that she would accompany the petitioner to Chandigarh in the last days of February i.e. 28.02.2019 to attend Celebrity Cricket League and meet the celebrities.
52. It is also the contention of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the present FIR has been filed so as to pressurize the petitioner as he did not accede to the demand of 9,00,000 USD from him by the victim/complainant as the victim wanted to take franchise of an American brand Bershka. Since, according to the petitioner, when he refused to invest in the business of the victim, she got annoyed and filed the false and fabricated FIR against the petitioner and his children.
53. The documents in this regard have been placed on record which shows that the talks of franchise were going on but when the petitioner did not agree, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the victim got agitated and filed the present FIR against the petitioner and his family members. Be that as it may, it appears to be a matrimonial discord between the petitioner and the victim. In the two status reports filed by the State, it is found that nothing has been handed over by the victim in support of her allegations, rather these status reports reveal that no documents or her mobile phone has been provided by the victim/complainant to the IO.
54. During the course of the arguments, it was vehemently argued by the Ld. counsel for the victim that on 21.10.2022, brother of the petitioner, namely, Chattar Singh with unknown persons threatened the victim to not file any complaint against the son of the petitioner or otherwise, she and her family members would be killed. Ld. counsel for the victim drew the attention of the Court to the report filed in PS Shalimar Bagh in this regard but in the entire complaint dated 15.11.2022, there is no reference to the name of Chattar Singh or that he came to her house to deter her from filing any complaint against the son of the petitioner. The petitioner has joined the investigation as and when required by the IO and now his custodial interrogation is not required in view of the facts and circumstances discussed herein above and the IO on 10.03.2023 has also stated in this Court that she does not require the petitioner for custodial interrogation.
55. Therefore, taking into totality the facts and circumstances, as observed hereinabove, the petitioner thus, in the event of arrest is allowed to be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO/MM concerned subject to the following conditions:-
(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available for the purpose of investigation by the IO and shall join the investigation as and when called by the IO;
(ii) He shall not leave the country without the permission of the trial court;
(iii) He shall not threaten the complainant, her family members and any other witness of this case;
(iv) He shall not tamper with the evidence.
56. It is made clear that in case these conditions are violated, the complainant or the prosecutor shall be free to move an appropriate application for revocation of the grant of bail to the present petitioner.
57. Subject to the aforesaid conditions, the petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. All pending applications (if any) are also disposed of.
58. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of this case.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J MAY 19, 2023