SAURABH JAIN Vs. STATE OF NCT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR 874/2013 u/s. 376/313/328/506 IPC registered with PS Shakarpur, Delhi. The FIR in the instant case was registered on 16th September, 2013 on the complaint of Ms. Babandeep Kaur wherein she alleged that she is 24 years of age. In July, 2004, she came in contact with the petitioner outside the Coffee Home at Nirman Vihar, Delhi and he started showing friendly to her and he then took her at his home where her friend was sitting with her boy friend. Her boy friend was Saurabh's cousin. On 20th July, 2004, the petitioner proposed her and made tall claims and allurement to her about him and his family and showed a very rosy picture. He told her that he is a graduate and has done B. Pharma and has his own Gym and also has wholesale shop. However, all these claims made by him were found to be take at a very later stage. She had fallen in trap of the petitioner and accepted his proposal. They became good friends which continued smoothly till 2010. In the year 2010, Saurabh Jain started compelling her to have physical relations which she refused. But one day he called her at his home and his mother was in another room. Thereafter he gave some drink to her. After taking the same, she became subconscious and he committed forceful rape upon her. For 4-5 days she did not talk to him but then he stated that he will marry her very soon and he succeeded in misguiding her so as to escape from clutches of law. However, it was only a ploy by the petitioner so that she may not complain to police and her family members. He started avoiding about the marriage and thereafter he committed rape number of times against her wishes and consent. In August, 2012, he asked her to make arrangement of Rs. 5 lacs on the pretext of construction of his house and virtually compelled her to bring the said money. Therefore, she gave all cash, some of her jewellery and all her savings to him with the hope that he will marry her. Despite that, he did not fulfil his words and continued to exploit her sexually. In March, 2013, she was shocked to learn that she was pregnant. She informed the petitioner about her pregnancy who asked her for abortion, which was declined, however, he sent her to Navjeevan Nursing Home where it was confirmed that she was pregnant. Thereafter, he pretended that he suffered heart attack on 15th March, 2013 and was admitted in Max Balaji Hospital and on 20th March, 2013 he was discharged. The petitioner sent her to Smart Medicos at Jagat Puri near Shri Ram Hospital for buying some abortion tablets. She took those tablets under his pressure. He took her to lady doctor in Walia Nursing Home, who examined her because there was no action or reaction of that tablet. She got done ultrasound and all. There he spent all the money for the same. After that, he did not talk to her for some days and when he again took her to the doctor and promised that in the year 2013 he will marry her. Thereafter, petitioner took her to his house in order to meet his mother but her mother told her that she will allow the petitioner to marry her only if her family will give Honda City Car, home appliances, Rs. 10 lac in cash and marriage function in Le-Meridien. She was shocked to learn about such demands as her parents cannot meet such demand of dowry. Thereafter, she came to know that the petitioner has not only maintained illicit relations with other 2-3 girls and have ruined their lives. On 8th September, 2013, she met a girl namely, Sweety, who was also been betrayed by the petitioner in the same manner. She along with that girl went to the house of the petitioner where petitioner and his mother threatened her and that girl and asked them to go away and that police cannot do anything. In this way, the petitioner has committed serious crimes by committing rape on her on many occasions against her wishes and consent and by giving false and wrong promises of marriage, extorted money to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs, jewellery and all her savings and ruined her life. Now they are threatening to kill her in case she raises her voice or make any complaint to the police.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is long and unexplained delay in making the complaint by the complainant to the police. The complaint has been filed after a long and belated period of more than three years and no reasonable explanation has been given by the complainant for making such belated complaint. On the basis of same and identical allegations, mother of the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail while the application moved by the petitioner was dismissed. It was further submitted that the complainant has not given her complete address in the complaint and the allegations are vague inasmuch as no specific date, time or month of the year 2010 has been stated by the complainant. It is also improbable that in the presence of mother of the petitioner, petitioner would have audacity to rape the complainant. It was submitted that there was non-compatibility between the two and due to inter-caste/inter-religion, the girl being Sikh and the boy being Jain, the marriage between the two was not possible by their families. This fact was known to their families. However, the friendly relationship continued being voluntary and consensual. However, due to all these problems and tensions, the petitioner, a young boy, suffered a massive heart attack/stroke and was admitted at Max Super Speciality Hospital, IP Extn. Patparganj, Delhi on 15th March, 2013 and he was discharged on 19th March, 2013. His angioplasty was done and sent to LAD was done. It was submitted that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded after a long period of more than ten days from the date of registration of the FIR and there are various discrepancies in the complaint and the Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The parties were known to each other and had become friends over a period of time. Both were adults and have consensual relationship, however, the complaint was lodge only when the relationship became sore. The fact that they were having good relation stands confirmed from the photographs and the SMSs sent by her to the petitioner on his mobile phone on regular basis.

(3.) Reliance was placed on Jagdish Nautiyal Vs. State, 2013 1 JCC 311; Rohit Chauhan Vs. State, 2013 4 JCC 2801; Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, 2013 4 JCC 2680; KP Thimmappa Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka, 2011 2 Crimes(SC) 140; Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2013 2 JCC 1260; Sajid @ Salmon Vs. State, 2013 2 JCC 808; Vikash Vs. The State of Delhi,2007 3 JCC 2336; Ashutosh Tiwari Vs. State NCT of Delhi,2009 1 JCC 105; Brij Mohan Verma Vs. State,2008 2 JCC 931 for submitting that the petitioner has roots in the society. Co-accused has been released on bail. There are no chances of his absconding. He is ready to join investigation. As such, he be released on bail.