DILROZE AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail through this bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Addressing arguments on this application, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case with the allegations of rape and theft although the petitioner has never indulged into any kind of sexual relationship with the complainant. Counsel also submits that even as per the complaint lodged by the complainant the main allegation is that she was sexually exploited by the petitioner on the false promise of marrying her. Counsel also submits that in fact the petitioner got in contact with the complainant through social networking site sometime in the month of March, 2010 and the petitioner was never told by the complainant that she was a widow having a child of 14 years. Counsel further submits that it is only in the month of August, 2011 for the first time, that the petitioner came to know that the complainant was a widow with a minor child. The contention of the counsel is that had the petitioner been aware of the said fact, he would not have developed any kind of relationship with the complainant. Counsel also submits that once the petitioner came to know about the said fact, the petitioner started avoiding the complainant which led to the complainant starting threatening and blackmailing the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner was abducted by the complainant from Jaipur through her own cousin brother Raju and he was kept under illegal confinement at the house of the complainant and after sometime with great difficulty he could manage to save himself from the clutches of the complainant. Counsel also places reliance on e-mail dated 15.9.2012 sent by the complainant to the petitioner to support his argument that the complainant has threatened and blackmailed the petitioner after filing the complaint cases against him. Counsel also submits that at best the present case can be taken as a case of live-in relation of the petitioner with the complainant and no inference can be drawn that the petitioner had been sexually exploiting the complainant or had raped her against her wishes. Counsel also submits that the complainant has mentioned the period of rape in the FIR as 'May 2010' while in the complaint filed before the Magistrate she has mentioned the period of first rape in 'August 2010'. The contention of the counsel is that-it is impossible that the complainant does not even know the date when she was allegedly raped by the petitioner. Counsel also argues that even the allegation with regard to theft is ex facie false as in the FIR she had leveled the allegation that the petitioner had committed the theft of Rs. 3.5 lacs while as per the case set up by her in the complaint she herself had given Rs. 3.5 lacs to the petitioner. Counsel submits that there also exists contradictions in the statement with regard to the articles which were alleged to have been stolen by the petitioner from her custody.

(2.) Based on the above submissions, counsel submits that this is a fit case of grant of anticipatory bail. Counsel has also placed reliance on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab.

(3.) This bail application has been strongly opposed by Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State. Counsel submits that looking into the gravity and severity of the offences under which the petitioner has been booked, he is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. Counsel also submits that it is not the allegation of rape alone but the petitioner has been threatening to kill the complainant as well as her son and besides that there is a charge of theft of Rs. 3.5 lacs and certain other articles also by the petitioner from the house of the complainant.