HARDWARI LAL VASHISTHA Vs. STATE GNCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A.No.10487/2017 (Exemption) Exemption granted, subject to all just exceptions.

(2.) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in case FIR No.234/2017, under Sections 376(D)/328/497/342/506/377 IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an old person of 70 years age. He is a senior citizen and the allegations as alleged in the FIR are false and baseless. Counsel further submits that the present FIR has been lodged against him due to ulterior motive to implicate the petitioner in a false case due to the reasons best known to the complainant. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has no nexus with the allegations made in the FIR. Counsel further submits that the FIR was lodged on 20th May, 2017 and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 23rd May, 2017. Counsel further submits that the alleged cooked up story starts from committing the rape on the person of the victim in December, 2015 when she was alleged to have been given some intoxicant in a car and thereafter she felt unconsciousness and when she regained consciousness, she found herself in a precarious condition. It is further submitted that the FIR indicates that she could not disclose this fact to her husband as she was extended threat by the petitioner and on the basis of the said threat extended, the petitioner kept on establishing sexual relationship with the complainant and thereafter the complainant along with the petitioner went to Goa on 10th April, 2017 and remained there for five days and the air tickets for Goa were arranged by the petitioner himself and during the said period, they had sexual relations at Goa as well and came back to Delhi on 15th April, 2017 by Air Asia.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the allegations, the last sexual relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was established in Goa. Counsel further submits that had there been no consent on the part of the complainant/victim, who is major and married woman, she would not have gone to Goa with the petitioner and would not have stayed there for five days. However, after coming back from Goa, she lodged a false case against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that since the petitioner is a senior citizen and is in judicial custody since 23rd May, 2017, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for an indefinite period and prays that the petitioner may be released on bail.