KAMLESH DEVI Vs. STATE OF DELHI NCT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present 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 case arising out of FIR bearing No. 335/2021, registered at Police Station Ranhola, Delhi for offence punishable under Sec. 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

(2.) Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 30/5/2021, the present FIR was lodged by the complainant i.e., Smt. 'X', who had reported that her daughter i.e., 'S', aged approximately 16 years was missing. Thereafter, the present FIR was lodged under Sec. 363 of IPC. On 23/7/2021, the mother of the prosecutrix, accompanied by the prosecutrix herself, had visited the police station stating that the minor victim/prosecutrix had been recovered from Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. Further, alleging that the prosecutrix had been subsequently found at the residence of one Rammohan i.e., the co-accused herein. The statement of prosecutrix had been recorded wherein she had stated that the accused, Rajiv, whom she had met through social media, had abducted her. She had further alleged that she had been administered an intoxicating substance in a beverage during her encounter with the accused at Madhuban Chowk on 29/7/2021. It is further alleged that upon regaining consciousness, the prosecutrix had found herself in Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, where allegedly she had been confined in a room by the co-accused for a period of approximately 20-25 days. It is further alleged that she had been subjected to sexual assault, her educational certificates, identification documents, and personal belongings were allegedly withheld by the co-accused. The prosecutrix further stated that the family of the co-accused, including the present applicant/accused had played a vital role in the commission of the offense. It is specifically stated by the prosecutrix/victim that the present applicant/accused, who is the mother of the co-accused i.e., Rajiv was also involved in commission of the present offence. During Investigation, it had been revealed that the present applicant/accused being the mother of the co-accused Rajiv, had allegedly abetted the offence. It is further specifically asserted by the prosecutrix that upon an attempt to escape from the custody of co-accused Rajiv, the present applicant/accused had caught her escaping and thereafter, she along with co-accused Rajiv, she had physically assaulted and confined the prosecutrix to a room. Furthermore, the present applicant/accused and the co-accused Rajiv had compelled the victim to enter into marriage with one Ram Mohan i.e., the co-accused, aged approximately 45 years, who had sexually assaulted the victim both before and after the marriage. The present applicant/accused had informed the prosecutrix that the accused persons would get her married to obtain monetary gains. Additionally, it is alleged that the accused persons used to bring various males to the premises when she was confined. The prosecutrix had been instructed to dress appropriately and subsequently present herself to the said individuals for sexual gratification. Thereafter, the chargesheet in the said case was filed for offences punishable under Ss. 363/365/372/376(2)(n)/344/ 346/34 of the IPC and Ss. 06/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act'). Further, supplementary chargesheet qua the present applicant/accused was filed on 31/5/2022

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present applicant/accused argues that the present applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the FIR does not disclose the role of the present applicant/accused in any manner and further the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. does not assign any specific role to the applicant/accused. It is further argued that there are material inconsistencies in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sec. 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C meaning thereby, that the prosecutrix is falsely implicating the present applicant/accused. It is further argued that the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of other co-accused i.e., Rammohan and not from the house of the present applicant/accused. It is further submitted that the present applicant/accused is in Judicial Custody for approximately 19 months and that the present applicant/accused is a housewife and is dependent on her family for her livelihood. It is further submitted that the present applicant/accused is a resident of Madhya Pradesh whereas the prosecutrix is a resident of Delhi and therefore there is no chance of her influencing the witness or tampering with the evidence. It is also submitted that most of the witnesses in the present case are police personnel and there is no possibility therefore of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. It is submitted that the Trial in the present case will take long time to conclude thus, the present applicant/accused be enlarged on bail.