RASHMITA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 439(2) Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2 by ld. ASJ vide his order dated 27.08.2011 in FIR No. 322/2011 registered at P.S. Mongol Puri under Section 376 IPC. The above mentioned FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner who was working as a full time maid in the house of respondent no.2. It has been alleged that on 03.08.2011 at about 8.45 p.m., the petitioner was dragged by respondent no.2 into his bedroom and forcibly raped. It has been stated by the petitioner that at the relevant time, the wife of respondent no.2 was not present at home. The information about the alleged incident was given to the police on the next day and the statement of the petitioner was recorded and the cloth worn by her at the time of the incident were seized by the police. The medical examination of the petitioner was conducted vide MLC No. 10741. In the statement given by the petitioner to the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the contents of the FIR were reiterated. The respondent no.2 was taken into police custody and after consideration of the facts of the case; the ld. ASJ enlarged the respondent no. 2 on bail. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) The order of grant of bail to the respondent no.2 has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that it is illegal as the ld. ASJ has failed to take into consideration the nature of the offence as well as the MLC report of the petitioner vide which the factum of rape committed upon the petitioner stood confirmed. It has been further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ld. ASJ has not considered the possibility that respondent no.2 could interfere in the administration of justice by tampering the evidence of the prosecution and hence the order of granting bail to the respondent no.2 may be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that the order of grant of bail was passed by the ld.ASJ after due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and confirms to the principles governing grant of bail to the accused. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that the considerations for cancellation of bail are different than those for grant of bail and unless it is proved that the accused person enlarged on bail has flouted the conditions imposed on him at the time of grant of bail, the Court should desist from cancellation of bail granted to the accused. It has been also submitted that there are five cases pending between the respondent no.2 and his wife and that he has been falsely implicated by the petitioner on the instigation of his wife who had herself called the police and intimated them about the alleged incident. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is still residing in the house of respondent no.2 and there is no allegation that he ever tried to influence or coax her.