Vijay Bahadur Yadav v. State

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 ofthe Code ofCriminaJ Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter refen-ed to as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No. 526/2016 under Sections 342/354(D)/376/506/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter-referred to as 'IPG'), registered at P.S Anand Parbat, Delhi. The petitioner is'stated to be in judicial custody since 09.12.2016. Status report is on record.

2. Brieffacts ofthe case as stated in the FIR are that the prosecutrix, filed a written complaint on 05.12.2016 alleging that on 15.06.2016 ataround 7-8 p.m. while [he complainant was alone at her house, the petitioner/ accused who is the nephew of the complainant visited her and upon threatening her committed sexual assault on her. It is flirther alleged ihai the petitioner took illicit photographs of the complainant and continued to force the BAILAPPLN. 1401/2017 Page 1of[4] 2017:DHC:8510 complainant to indulge into sexual relations with him by threatening and blackmailing her that he would show her photographs to her husband and other relatives and spoil her reputation in the society.

3. Petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2016 and chargesheet was filed on 30.01.2017. Thereafter on 27.0^!.2017 charge under Section 342/354D/376/506 of IPG was framed against the petitioner and as per the Status Report, the case is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence.

4. The petitioner has previously filed two applications before the Trial Court for seeking bail, however the same have been dismissed vide orders dated 15.02.2017 and 31.05.2017 respectively.

5. Mr. Saravjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely irnplicated in the case and is in judicial custody since 19.12.2016; that the present complaint has been lodged by the complainant at the behest of her husband who is involved in a financial dispute with the father of the petitioner and owes an amount of Rs 60 lakhs to him and to riggle out repayment of Rs 60 laldis, the complainant has impleaded the petitioner in the present case; that the petitioner's phone was seized but no alleged picture or video of the complainant was found therein; that nothing has been recoi-ered from the petitioner as is falsely alleged by the petitioner so as to connect the accused with the offence alleged; that the investigation in the case has already been completed and the charge-sheejt has been filed and hence BAIL.APFLN. 1401/2017 Page 2 of[4] further incarceration Oi the petitioner would serve no useful purpose.

6. Per contra, Ms. Anita Abraham, learned APP appearing for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has been charged with a serious and' grave offence; that petitioner has been actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence; that the trial, is at the stage of prosecution evidence and hence, the present bail application be dismissed.

7. ^ I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The main issue before this Court is whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant ofbaU in the present case or not.

9. The petitioner in the present case is known to the complainant by virtue of being her nephew. From a perusal of the complaint, it is apparent that besides specific allegations of sexual assault against the petitioner, the complainant has also alleged that the petitioner has been blackmailing and threatening the complainant with some illicit photographs and videos of her in his possession. As per the status report filed on behalf of the.State, it is mentioned that the FSL Report in respcct of the recovery of deleted data from the mobile phone of the petitioner is still awaited. Moreover trial is at the stage ofprosecution evidence and so far nothing substantial has been brought forth to make a good ground for grant of bail to the petitioner.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case; and while perusing the allej^ations levelled against the BAILAPPl-N. 1401/2017 Page3of[4] petitioner, and considering the gravity of offence and the nature, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in this case. Hence the petition for grant ofregular bail stands dismissed.

11. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the merits ofthe case during trial.

12. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. SANGIT^MLINgl^ SEHGAL, J OCTOBER 12, 2017 //gr. BAIL.APPLN. 1401/2017. Page[4] of[4]