MANISH JINDAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No. 112/2012 under Sections 376/506 IPC registered by PS: Krishna Nagar, Delhi.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Kavita Jain, d/o, Subhash Chand Jain, r/o H. No. Subhash Mohalla, Sonepat, Haryana, lodged a complaint on 3.9.2011, on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR was registered. The allegations in the complaint are that the prosecutrix is a married woman and in the year 2008, she was residing in House No. 23, Gali No. 3, Main Shanker Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. The accused, Manish Jindal, had purchased a plot adjoining to the house of the prosecutrix. He started borrowing the household articles from the prosecutrix and had also taken electricity connection from her house. It is alleged by her that on one day, when her husband and the children had gone to attend the engagement ceremony of some relation, the accused came to her house and gave her some mithai (prasad) on the representation that it was the offering of the God. The said mithai (prasad) was laced with intoxicant. On consuming the said mithai (prasad), the prosecutrix fell unconscious and the accused raped her. When the prosecutrix gained her consciousness, she found herself naked and she protested, but the accused threatened and terrorized her. From the year 2008 to 2011, she was raped by the accused on 3-4 occasions. In the year 2011, the prosecutrix became pregnant and because of this, the accused gave her abortion pills, which she consumed, as a consequence of which her health condition deteriorated. It has now been stated that the husband of the prosecutrix has deserted her and further that she was being blackmailed by the accused to submit to him physically, as the accused was claiming that he was having the video recording/clipping of the prosecutrix, which, if shown to the public at large, will spoil her image completely. After the registration of the FIR, on the basis of this complaint, investigations were carried out and the statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 164 Cr. P. C. , was recorded, wherein she had supported this story.

(3.) Mr. Rakesh Tiku, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused, has very vehemently argued for the grant of anticipatory bail. It has been contended by him that the FIR does not give the date, time or the month in which the rape had allegedly been committed. It has been contended by him that as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix was a married woman and, therefore, she had a consensual sexual relation with the petitioner. In this regard, it has been contended that the petitioner is in possession of various SMSs received from the prosecutrix, which belies her claim, as if she was subjected to rape. It has also been denied by the learned Senior Counsel that the accused is in possession of any video recording/clipping or the photographs, which may be said to be objectionable and belonging to the prosecutrix. It has been stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Siddhiram Satlingappa Mhetre vs- State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2011 1 SCC 694, has clearly laid down that it is not necessary to arrest the accused in each and every case. The Police must give the justified reasons for the arrest. It has been contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the incident pertains to the year 2008, while as the denial of the bail to the accused as on date will not only be harsh, but also bring disrepute to the accused. Therefore, the accused be enlarged on bail, as he is prepared to join the investigation. It has also been offered by him that the accused is prepared to surrender the SMSs which the prosecutrix had sent to the accused which will belie the case of the Prosecution. Hence, it has been stated that the petitioner be admitted to anticipatory bail.