NIRMAL VAID Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition moved under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail.

(2.) As per the allegations leveled by the prosecutrix in the FIR the present petitioner happens to be the father of one of the prosecutrix's student, who used to visit her studio almost daily to pick his son from the dance class. It is further alleged that the petitioner representing himself to be an event Manager, Film & TV show producer and Media coordinator assured the prosecutrix that he will give her a break in his film/serial as a choreographer and thereafter she started believing him. The complainant has further alleged that she started hanging out with the petitioner and in due course of time the petitioner got to know that the complainant was having a strained relationship with her husband and also her in-laws. It is further alleged that having come to know about the aforesaid fact, the petitioner started convincing her that he needs emotional support from her as his wife does not love him. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner represented that he would seek divorce from his wife and similarly she also take divorce from her husband and thereafter they would marry each other. It is also the case of the complainant that thereafter she started believing in him blindly and on 10th June, 2009 at around 9.30 to 10.00 p.m., while she was preparing to leave from her dance studio for her home, the petitioner entered the studio with a soft drink bottle and offered it to her. It is alleged in the FIR that after consuming the drink she became unconscious. It is the case of the prosecturix that in the said condition the petitioner raped her forcibly without her consent and it is only when she re-gained her consciousness at about 3.00 a.m. and when she started lamenting bitterly, the petitioner started consoling her and repeated his promise that he will marry her and believing in such assurance given by him, the prosecutrix did not report the said incident to the police. It is also the case of the prosecutrix that he called her at 51, Jagriti Enclave Extn. and repeated the same act on false promise of marriage on 17th August, 2010 and this act was again repeated on 10th October, 2010. It is also the case of the prosecutrix that on 7th March, 2010 the petitioner took her with him for his upcoming movie to be shot in Dehradun where on 7th May, 2012 he forced her to make sexual relationship with him against her will with false promise of marriage. Then on 13th July, 2012 to 15th July, 2012 the petitioner again took her to Rajasthan for the event of shoot of a documentary on Swami Narayan Dass and again committed rape on her without her consent. In September, 2012 when the complainant asked him to take her to his house then he started avoiding her and making false pretentions so as to linger on the matter.

(3.) It is in this background that the complainant has alleged that her patience and tolerance level had crossed all barriers and reported the matter to the police. The complainant has also alleged that there is threat to her life and limb and if anything happens to her and her family members, it would the petitioner and his acquaintances who would be held responsible.