BHARAT MALIK Vs. NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of Bharat Malik who claims to be the publisher of a magazine LACE MAKER in which certain photographs of the complainant in nude / semi nude were published. The petitioner claims that he holds a valid licence to publish the said magazine with erotica. Two anticipatory bail applications moved by the petitioner before the Sessions Court already stand rejected.

(2.) Sections 363,384,242,501,506 and 120-B Indian Penal Code . have been invoked against the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he has not been specifically named in the F.I.R. Moreover, he claims that he is a mere publisher of the magazine. He buys the photographs for his magazine from professionals in the field. The magazine is licenced. Therefore, he has not committed any offence. It is further argued that most of the Sections of the Indian Penal Code . which have been invoked against him are of bailable offences. It is also claimed that the photographs do not show that they were taken under any threat. They contain natural expressions. Moreover, photographs taken by another photographer and published in a different magazine shows that the complainant is doing this on a professional basis and there can be no cause of complaint.

(3.) The case is at the investigation stage. The petitioner has kept away all along. So much so that inspite of there being no bail order in his favour, he has managed to keep away from the law enforcement agency. The FIR contains serious allegations. Eventhough the petitioner is not specifically named in the FIR, presence of a person not known to the complainant during the photography session is alleged. At this stage it is not possible to say that petitioner is free from blame. Investigation alone will reveal the role of the persons involved. The complainant was less than 18 681 years of age at the time of the incident. The nature of the act complained of is serious having grave repercussions for the young girl. The fact that some of the offences are bailable does not persuade me to bail out the petitioner. The non-bailable offences are by themselves serious enough. Moreover, it is prima facie shown to be a team work which makes it worse. For all these reasons I do not consider it a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Petition Dismissed.