Full Text
Translation output
$-59 & 50.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN 2369/2016
DEEPAK DUA
Petitioner
Through; Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh,Advocate
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN 2369/2016
DEEPAK DUA
Petitioner
Through; Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh,Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF NOT OF DELHI & ANR
Through:
Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP with SI Santosh,PS New Ashok Nagar
Mr. G.P Thareja, Adv. for the complainant
Through:
Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP with SI Santosh,PS New Ashok Nagar
Mr. G.P Thareja, Adv. for the complainant
BAIL APPLN.2447/2016
KRISHAN KUMAR
Through: Mr. Petitioner Lokesh Kumar Mishra and
Sameer Kumar Ojha,Advocates
KRISHAN KUMAR
Through: Mr. Petitioner Lokesh Kumar Mishra and
Sameer Kumar Ojha,Advocates
VERSUS
STATE(GOVT OF NOT DELHI)
Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP with SI Santosh,PS New Ashok Nagar
Mr. G.P Thareja, Adv. for the complainant
Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP with SI Santosh,PS New Ashok Nagar
Mr. G.P Thareja, Adv. for the complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 2016:DHC:8747
-
29.11.2016 Issue notice. Notice is accepted on behalfofthe State as well as on behalf of the complainant. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid bail applications,who are two ofthe co-accused in case FIR No.571/2016 registered at PS New Ashok Nagar under Section
376D/506/34 IPG. I have also heard the learned APP as well as counsel for the complainant atsome length.
It is pointed out by Mr. Lekhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Bail Appl No.2369/2016thatthe allegations againstthe accused are that on the first occasion gang rape was committed by the two petitioners in November 2013,thereafter in March 2014 and lastly on 08.03.2016 rape was committed by Krishan Kumar. However, the FIR in question was registered only on 05.11.2016. However, Mr. Thareja, counsel for the complainant states that the complaint was initially given on 02.11.2016, but the same was got registered only on 05.11.2016 as the I.O. colluded
/»Hr- with the accused. In any event, it is not disputed that no complaint was given regarding the alleged rape/gang rape prior to 02.11.2016.
Mr. Lekhi has pointed out that on 21.09.2016, the complainant had filed an application under Section 156(3)Cr PC againstthe accused Krishan
Kumar in relation to a property transaction and payment ofa cheque. In the said^plication,there wasno whisperofanyrapeand theallegation inthe complaint was only against Krishan Kumar,and no allegation ofany nature whatsoever was made against Deepak Dua. Mr.Lekhi submits that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr PC, for the first time, the complainantsoughtto rope in the wife ofDeepak Dua i.e. Vandana Dua into the offence ofgang rape. He points out that the complainant even refused internal medical examination as recorded in the FIR itself.
Mr. Thareja has submitted that the complainant had not refused the
V ination and it wasso recorded by the I.O.since he was colludlifwith the accused. He submits that a complaint to this effect was
— given by the complainant on 24.11.2016 i.e. nearly 20 days after the registration ofthe FIR.
Mr. Katyal has pointed out that medical examination of the complainant was got conducted. However,the internal medical examination was not done by the doctor on accountofherrefusalto get herselfmedically examined.
It is also pointed out by Mr. Lekhi that in the face ofallegations of gang rape allegedly perpetrated in November 2013 and March 2014,it does not stand to reason that the accused Krishan Kumar would enter into a flat buyer agreement with the builder, wherein the complainant was shown as the second purchaser along with Krishan Kumar. He also points out that even before the lodging of the FIR in question, on 06.10.2016, Krishan
Kumar had made a complaint to the Bank wherein he and the complainant were having ajoint account,since he had apprehension thatthe complainant may misuse the said account. It is also pointed out that the petitioner
Deepak Dua has alreadyjoined the investigation, whereas Krishan Kumar's police remand was taken for investigation and he is injudicial custody since
06.11.2016.
Mr. Thareja has submitted that the joint account was opened by
Krishan Kumar by manipulation and by defrauding the complainant by
I showing his name as the first name. Hesubmits that in thatrespect a case is already pending in Gautam Budh Nagar Distt. The flat jointly held by
Krishan Kumar and the complainant was also sought to be misappropriated by Krishan Kumar by using the property and funds ofthe complainant.
The financial transaction between the complainant and Krishan
Kumar,to which Deepak Dua in any event is not a party, is not the subject matter ofthe FIR in question. In that respect, the complainant has taken other legal remedy and, therefore, those considerations do not come in the way ofthis court in considering the present bail applications.
Looking to the facts and circumstances,as taken note ofherein above, I am inclined to allow both the bail applications. Accordingly,Deepak Dua is granted anticipatory bail in the matter. In case of his arrest, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond with one surety in the sum ofRs.20,000/- to the satisfaction ofthe arresting officer. This is further subject to the condition that he shall not coerce, pressurise or threaten the complainant or get in touch with her or tamper with any evidence. He shall join the investigation as and when called for by the 1.0. He shall provide his mobile phone number, which shall be kept in working condition at all times and shall not change the same without prior intimation to the court.
The petitioner Krishan Kumar is also directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond with one surety in the sum ofRs.20,000/- to the satisfaction ofthe Trial Court. This is further subject to the condition that he shall not coerce, pressurise or threaten the complainant or get in touch with her or tamper with any evidence. He shalljoin the investigation as and when called for by the I.O. He shall provide his mobile phone number, which shall be kept in working condition at all times and shall not change the same without prior intimation to the court.
The applications stand disposed of. Dasti.
VIPIN SANGHI,J NOVEMBER 29,2016 sr
-
29.11.2016 Issue notice. Notice is accepted on behalfofthe State as well as on behalf of the complainant. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid bail applications,who are two ofthe co-accused in case FIR No.571/2016 registered at PS New Ashok Nagar under Section
376D/506/34 IPG. I have also heard the learned APP as well as counsel for the complainant atsome length.
It is pointed out by Mr. Lekhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Bail Appl No.2369/2016thatthe allegations againstthe accused are that on the first occasion gang rape was committed by the two petitioners in November 2013,thereafter in March 2014 and lastly on 08.03.2016 rape was committed by Krishan Kumar. However, the FIR in question was registered only on 05.11.2016. However, Mr. Thareja, counsel for the complainant states that the complaint was initially given on 02.11.2016, but the same was got registered only on 05.11.2016 as the I.O. colluded
/»Hr- with the accused. In any event, it is not disputed that no complaint was given regarding the alleged rape/gang rape prior to 02.11.2016.
Mr. Lekhi has pointed out that on 21.09.2016, the complainant had filed an application under Section 156(3)Cr PC againstthe accused Krishan
Kumar in relation to a property transaction and payment ofa cheque. In the said^plication,there wasno whisperofanyrapeand theallegation inthe complaint was only against Krishan Kumar,and no allegation ofany nature whatsoever was made against Deepak Dua. Mr.Lekhi submits that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr PC, for the first time, the complainantsoughtto rope in the wife ofDeepak Dua i.e. Vandana Dua into the offence ofgang rape. He points out that the complainant even refused internal medical examination as recorded in the FIR itself.
Mr. Thareja has submitted that the complainant had not refused the
V ination and it wasso recorded by the I.O.since he was colludlifwith the accused. He submits that a complaint to this effect was
— given by the complainant on 24.11.2016 i.e. nearly 20 days after the registration ofthe FIR.
Mr. Katyal has pointed out that medical examination of the complainant was got conducted. However,the internal medical examination was not done by the doctor on accountofherrefusalto get herselfmedically examined.
It is also pointed out by Mr. Lekhi that in the face ofallegations of gang rape allegedly perpetrated in November 2013 and March 2014,it does not stand to reason that the accused Krishan Kumar would enter into a flat buyer agreement with the builder, wherein the complainant was shown as the second purchaser along with Krishan Kumar. He also points out that even before the lodging of the FIR in question, on 06.10.2016, Krishan
Kumar had made a complaint to the Bank wherein he and the complainant were having ajoint account,since he had apprehension thatthe complainant may misuse the said account. It is also pointed out that the petitioner
Deepak Dua has alreadyjoined the investigation, whereas Krishan Kumar's police remand was taken for investigation and he is injudicial custody since
06.11.2016.
Mr. Thareja has submitted that the joint account was opened by
Krishan Kumar by manipulation and by defrauding the complainant by
I showing his name as the first name. Hesubmits that in thatrespect a case is already pending in Gautam Budh Nagar Distt. The flat jointly held by
Krishan Kumar and the complainant was also sought to be misappropriated by Krishan Kumar by using the property and funds ofthe complainant.
The financial transaction between the complainant and Krishan
Kumar,to which Deepak Dua in any event is not a party, is not the subject matter ofthe FIR in question. In that respect, the complainant has taken other legal remedy and, therefore, those considerations do not come in the way ofthis court in considering the present bail applications.
Looking to the facts and circumstances,as taken note ofherein above, I am inclined to allow both the bail applications. Accordingly,Deepak Dua is granted anticipatory bail in the matter. In case of his arrest, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond with one surety in the sum ofRs.20,000/- to the satisfaction ofthe arresting officer. This is further subject to the condition that he shall not coerce, pressurise or threaten the complainant or get in touch with her or tamper with any evidence. He shall join the investigation as and when called for by the 1.0. He shall provide his mobile phone number, which shall be kept in working condition at all times and shall not change the same without prior intimation to the court.
The petitioner Krishan Kumar is also directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond with one surety in the sum ofRs.20,000/- to the satisfaction ofthe Trial Court. This is further subject to the condition that he shall not coerce, pressurise or threaten the complainant or get in touch with her or tamper with any evidence. He shalljoin the investigation as and when called for by the I.O. He shall provide his mobile phone number, which shall be kept in working condition at all times and shall not change the same without prior intimation to the court.
The applications stand disposed of. Dasti.
VIPIN SANGHI,J NOVEMBER 29,2016 sr
JUDGMENT