Champai Munda v. State

Delhi High Court · 08 Mar 2019 · 2019:DHC:1456
Sanjeev Sachdeva
BAIL APPLN. 294/2019
2019:DHC:1456
criminal appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused of rape and criminal intimidation, emphasizing the recorded testimony and absence of risk to the trial's integrity.

Full Text
Translation output
BAIL APPLN.294/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on: 08.03.2019
BAIL APPLN. 294/2019
CHAMPAI MUNDA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijeet Bhagat, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State with
SI Ajay Kumar.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks Regular bail in FIR No.712/2016 under Sections 376/506 IPC, Police Station Rajouri.

2. Allegations in the FIR are that the prosecutrix were brought to Delhi by her sister-in-law and left with the petitioner, who was to find employment for her. It is alleged that petitioner had sent the prosecutrix to a particular house but she did not like the work there and she complained to the petitioner and thereafter she was sent to another house where also she was not happy with her job and when she complained to the petitioner, he is alleged to have taken her back 2019:DHC:1456 and on the way back had taken her to a secluded place and made physical relationship with her against her wishes.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the prosecutrix was a household help and was employed through the petitioner and was dissatisfied and disgruntled and accordingly filed a false complaint against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are very vague and no date and time or period has been mentioned as to when the alleged offence had happened. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the testimony of the prosecutrix has already been recorded before the Trial Court and there is now no possibility of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the witness.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2017.

6. Without commenting on the merits of the case and on perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.

7. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, petitioner shall be released on bail if not required in any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court. Petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer, if not already done.

8. Petition is allowed in the above terms.

9. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MARCH 08, 2019 st