GYANENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR bearing No. 0038/2023, registered at Police Station Maidan Garhi, New Delhi for offences punishable under Ss. 376/313/323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO ).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix in this case on 18/1/2023 on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. The complainant had alleged that in the year 2012 when she was studying in 9th standard and was 14 years of age, she used to attend coaching centre for taking tuition classes. She had alleged that the accused herein used to teach her and had indulged in inappropriate behavior. He had also taken her to a place at Palam, Delhi on 12/10/2012 where he had sexually assaulted her. Thereafter whenever she used to be alone at home, he used to have physical relations with her against her consent. In the year 2013 when she had become pregnant he had got the child aborted by administering some medicines to her. Till the year 2017, he had kept assuring her that he will get married to her and on that pretext had made physical relations with her forcibly. In April 2022,when she had again become pregnant he had taken to her Radha Nirmal Hospital, Mahipalpur, Delhi where he had got the pregnancy terminated. She had also come to know in the meantime that the accused was already married and when she had confronted him with the same, he had beaten her however, he had thereafter assured her that he will obtain divorce from his wife and will get married to her. In August 2022 the applicant had taken a room on rent in Mahipalpur, Delhi and had sexually assaulted her on many occasions on the false pretext of marriage, he also used to beat her. It was also alleged whenever she used to confront him or resist the sexual assault, the applicant used to assault her physically.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the relationship between the prosecutrix and the applicant was consensual. He has also stated that the accused had not promised her marriage and that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there are material contradictions in the FIR itself, and the WhatsApp chats between the applicant and the prosecutrix. Hence, the bail application of the applicant be allowed.