VIKAS RANA AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in Case FIR No.1558/2014 under Section 376/506/34 registered at Police Station Mehrauli. In her complaint, lodged on 30.08.2014 the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) stated that she joined Max Life Insurance Company as Recruitment Manager on 11.06.2010. Petitioner-Vikas Rana joined the said company in the year 2011 and subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Manager. Vikas Rana had an evil eye on her from the very inception and used to tease her. In the year 2012, while she, Vikas Rana and another colleague had gone to Singapore tour on behalf of the company, on the way to Malaysia on cruze, Vikas Rana administered her a soft drink and she became unconscious. When she regained senses, she came to know that Vikas Rana had committed rape on her person. She was threatened by the petitioner to upload the video clip on face book and U-tube and also to send it to her family members. On return to India, Vikas Rana used to call her at his rented house at DLF Phase III, Gurgaon.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that a false complaint has been lodged by the complainant. The petitioners have since joined the investigation. Vikas Rana is being pressurised to marry the complainant who has a son aged 8 years. No threat was ever extended to the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix vehemently urged that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to recover video clip. Serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and they do not deserve anticipatory bail. After interim protection by this Court, they had threatened the complainant on various occasions for which she has lodged complaints with the police. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

(3.) Perusal of the record reveals that by orders dated 26.09.2014 and 15.10.2014 passed in the Bail Application Nos.2158/2014 and 2256/2014 respectively, the petitioners were granted interim protection on their undertaking to join the investigation as and when summoned by the investigating officer. The order dated 26.09.2014 was passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the complainant who had opposed the grant of protection. Subsequently, Crl.M.A.No.17957/2014 was filed for cancellation of interim protection.