Ritesh v. State

1. Vide this application under Section 439 Cr.PC, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No...368/2012 under Sections 328/365/366/368/376 (2G)/506/34 IPG registered atPolice Station Sangam Vihar, Delhi

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and was arrested by the police on 17.10.2012 and since then he IS mjail. He is no more required for any purpose as the statement of prosecutrix has already been recorded besides statements of several other witnesses. Counsel further submits that the FIR was registered on the statement ofprosecutrix where she levelled allegations of gang rape by four persons. Reference was made to her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC wherein she stated that she was not shown any knife. The phone number which was given by prosecutrix has been found to be switched off. Reference was also made to the MLC wherein the doctor opined that the examination findings do not support rape / force abuse, however, vaginal intercourse could not be ruled out as hymen was not intact. Moreover, according to prosecutrix. Raj whom she had referred in her initial complaint was resident ofMangolpuri, Delhi whereas the present accused IS resident ofSangam Vihar, Delhi as such he is not the same person to whom reference was made by prosecutrix in her complaint as such the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Bail Appln. No.l905/2015 2016:DHC:8211

3. The application is vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the ground that the prosecutrix has duly identified the petitioner to be perpetrator ofgang rape committed upon her. All the material witnesses have supported the case ofprosecution. The prosecutrix has also supported the initial complaint made by her. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded wherein she corroborated her version. She also clarified that she knew the accused Ritesh by the name ofRaj. The petitioner was also arrested at her instance on 17.10.2012 from his shop in Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. The FSL report also supports the case of prosecution that human semen was detected inexhibit 'lA' i.e. two micro slides having faint smear ofvaginal swabof prosecutrix as suchthe petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

4. Needless to say, the allegations are very serious innature as, as per prosecutrix, she was gang raped by four persons. In the very initial complaint made by her, she has mentioned that out offour boys, two are named as Raj and Sumit and she can identify all the four boys. Thereafter, as per prosecution version, all the four accused were arrested at the instance of prosecutrix. She has identified the accused and denied the suggestion that the accused was implicated by her under the false name of 'Raj' orthat accused is not loiown as 'Raj'. Shewent on stating that the name disclosed to her was Raj and Ritessh is not his name. She has assigned the major role to this accused in her deposition before the Court.

5. Minute scrutiny ofthe prosecution evidence isnot warranted atthis juncture lest same may affect the merit of the ease. Mere long incarceration is not sufficient to release the petitioner on bail, keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offence.

6. That being so, at this stage, there is no ground to release the petitioner on bail. The application is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, elarified that nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to any expression ofopinion on merits ofthe case. The Trial Court record be sent back immediately. (SUNITA GUPTA) FEBRUARY 23,2016/.rf JUDGE