Niket Ranjan v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. By this application the petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR NO. 1101/2020 dated 18th November, 2020 registered at PS Binda Pur South West District under Sections 506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO.

2. The petitioner has been in custody since 04th December, 2020 and as per Nominal Roll has no other involvements, has not sought interim bail throughout the period of incarceration and his jail conduct is normal and satisfactory.

3. The background facts, as per the case of the prosecution are that the petitioner was imparting coaching at his residence at A-46 Block A, Flat No. 3, Unit -2, Near Rubi Global School, Mohan Garden Extension, Uttam Nagar, West Delhi-110059. Since 2013, he was giving coaching to various girls students. On 18th November, 2020, the present FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging that when she was in 9th class and used to study tuition from the petitioner in 2016, he had called her to her house and tried to blackmail her as he had some pictures of her. Then in January 2017, he called her to his house and had sexual interaction with her and then threatened her that he will make the photographs viral. Yet again, he called her in 2018 and had sexual intercourse with her and kept on blackmailing her and torturing her mentally. The complainant informed her parents and accordingly on the basis of the complaint, the MLC report was obtained and the FIR was registered. The chargesheet has also been filed dated 13th January 2020 and the trial is underway. Three witnesses have been examined which includes the victim, the mother of the victim, and the doctor and 11 formal witnesses are still to be examined.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the FIR was lodged after a delay of about 2 years from the alleged first incident of assault in January 2017, and it is a strange coincidence that this date was given by the complainant which was just one month before she turned major on 9th February 2017. The complainant does not mention any particular date or the venue of this particular incident. While the complainant constantly urged that the petitioner had blackmailed and threatened her, she also stated that she had never seen any material which he alleged he was in possession of in any electronic form. The MLC of the complainant did not show any internal injury or tear or signs of force vide the internal gynecologist examination. The complainant in a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C again did not provide any date, time or venue of the first instance of assault.

5. As per the petitioner, in the complainant’s examination in chief conducted on 21st September 2021, the complainant made further improvements from her earlier statements given to the police but she yet again omitted to mention the month of the first incident and simply said that "galat kaam" happened with her in the year 2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant made even further improvements and said that "perhaps the first incident of assault happened in December 2016 or January 2017 and she does not remember the exact”. In her testimony she reiterated that she had never seen a video which she alleges the petitioner was using to threaten her. As per the complainant, she had first informed her father of the entire ordeal but the father has not been made a public witness, nor have been other students studying along with her. Incidentally in her cross examination, a photograph of 14th November 2017 (children's day) was shown to the complainant which has a group photograph of the students and the petitioner, and she states that up till that date there was no such threat. This is completely contradictory to her statement that the first incident of assault was in January 2017.

6. As per the petitioner, the complainant further accepted that she was in constant touch with the petitioner till 2020 through WhatsApp and Google Hangouts and as per the petitioner, there are about 2000 pages of chats between the complainant and the petitioner submitted by the FSL but could not be opened in pen drive due to technical error and had to be sent back, the report of which is still awaited. The learned counsel of the petitioner drew attention to the fact that the complainant also visited various hotels along with the petitioner and gave her Aadhar Card as a reference in the said hotels. Despite the petitioner submitting bills of the said hotels in their defence, the investigating agency has not verified the same from the said hotels. Even from the statement of the mother of the complainant recorded in the Court she had not seen any threatening pictures and stated that from 2015 till November 2018, her daughter was continuously pursuing her study normally and she did not notice surreptitious activities regarding her daughter. Further the complainant went with the petitioner accused to Lloyd College, Greater Noida for counseling, for admissions and met Professor Vinay Kumar for the same. It was stated that while returning from the counseling, the complainant had a fight with the petitioner and thus what was a cordial relationship broke off and pursuant to that the complaint was filed.

7. What has been pointed out by the petitioner is that as per the FIR, the complainant stated that she had left the tuitions in 2016 and the petitioner had been using pictures that he apparently possessed to blackmail her. A perusal of the testimony of the complainant recorded before the Trial Court would show that the complainant had stated that pursuant to this blackmail and under threat of the petitioner she had to send her photographs to him and then again he called her in the year of 2018 and established physical relations with her and even after 2018, she used to send her photographs to the petitioner. As regards the first incident, she simply says that it occurred in the month of December or January, but she did not remember the exact date. Further she states that he threatened her even in the year 2019 but he did not do anything wrong with her. In the cross examination of the complainant, she states that she used to send her photographs to the petitioner till 2020, while the petitioner had never sent his photograph on her mobile, she confirms that she had given her Aadhar Card as ID proof when she used to visit hotels with the petitioner from the year 2018 to 2020 and the petitioner used to make payments of the hotels while they used to stay there for about 3-5 hours. Further, in her cross-examination, she has stated that she used to get salary for giving tuition classes in the center where there used to be four to five students and she used to get salary for the same. She stated that the petitioner used to reside in front of their home, but prior to the present complaint she never had told her parents regarding the blackmailing.

8. The learned APP has contended that the mobile phone has been seized from the petitioner accused, but the FSL report is awaited but he objects to the plea for grant of bail considering that the petitioner would be a constant threat to the complainant who stays close by. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is ready to abide by all conditions that the Court may impose and undertakes to shift to village Nawadih, Post- Pandeypura, Distt- Chatra Jharkhand 825401, which is his native village and not attempt to hinder in the peaceful lives of the complainant or her family.

9. The mother of the victim who was present in Court subsequent notices were issued by the Court to the IO he has stated that her daughter, the complainant got married while their family continues to stay in Uttam Nagar.

10. On appreciation of the contention of the parties and on perusal of the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the varying testimony of the complainant both as regards to the lack of specificity as well as the statements regarding her continued association with the petitioner including visits of hotels as well as exchange of photographs, it would not be prudent to keep the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, when the trial is likely to take some time and he is yet to be proved guilty. The petitioner has been in custody already for about 2 years and the material witnesses i.e complainant and the mother of the complainant have already been examined and the witnesses left to be examined are merely formal witnesses. Besides the petitioner has undertaken to go back to his native village at the address provided above.

11. Considering that the evidence before the learned Trial Court may result in a finding of consensual interaction as also the fact that the first incident reported by the petitioner was just prior to her becoming a major in February, 2017, that to without any specificity, could potentially point to the fact that allegations under POCSO may not be made out.

12. In light of the above, and that the trial in the matter is likely to take some time, and it would not be prudent to keep the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court, further subject to the following conditions: i. Petitioner will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. ii. Petitioner shall provide permanent address as mentioned above to the Ld. Trial Court. The petitioner shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit and to the IO regarding any change in residential address. iii. Petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing. iv. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called by the IO concerned. v. Petitioner shall provide all mobile numbers to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times and shall not switch off or change the mobile number without prior intimation to the IO concerned. The mobile location be kept on at all times. vi. Petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecution witnesses, the complainant/victim or any member of the complainant/victim’s family or tamper with the evidence of the case.

13. Needless to state, but any observation touching the merits of the case is purely for the purposes of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall not be construed as an expression on merits of the matter.

14. Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.

15. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications (if any) are disposed of as infructuous.