SATYENDER SRIVASTAV Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 379/2019 of PS KNK Marg for offences under Sec. 363 /376 /323 /342 /373 /420 /468 /471 IPC and Sec. 6 of POSCO Act.

(2.) Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. The prosecutrix, minor in age was sitting in a park, upset with the quarrel between her parents, and she was approached by one Ms. Mithlesh, who offered to take her home for some time. Once taken to the home of Ms. Mithlesh, the prosecutrix was detained forcibly and further forced into prostitution by Mithlesh. The accused/applicant is allegedly one such customer, who forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the minor prosecutrix. Subsequently, one Mukesh who suffers 70% physical disability helped the prosecutrix escape from the house of Ms. Mithlesh.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for accused/applicant that this is a fit case to grant bail to the accused/applicant as the prosecution evidence is not likely to lead to conviction. Irrespective of the case set up by the accused/applicant before this court and before the Court of Sessions, learned counsel for accused/applicant clearly states that she is not claiming parity with Mukesh, who has been granted bail. Further, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses recorded during trial bear a number of discrepancies and contradictions with their statements under Sec. 161 CrPC, Sec. 164 CrPC and MLC.