SHIVALI SHARMA Vs. STATE & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition filed under Section 439(2) read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter after referred as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner has assailed cancellation/setting aside of the impugned order dated 27.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Spl. Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby respondent Nos. 2 have been granted anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 145/2017 under Sections 354/354-A/509/506/323/34 IPC registered at P.S. K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi.

(2.) The contextual matrix of the case as set out in the petition is that on 25.03.2017 , the petitioner along with her younger sister Bhumika aged 10 years and her son Aarav Sharma aged 2 1/2 years were coming on foot to her parental house from Shani Bazar, sector-15, Rohini, Delhi. When they reached at the T-Point near Vidya Bharti school, 3-4 persons namely Devi Prashad, Yogesh Rana, Devender Kakkar, known to the petitioner as they reside in her parent's neighbourhood, and his wife's nephew/Aakash Sharma(not known to her from before). Aakash Sharma/respondent No. 2 came forward and hit/pressed her on her chest with his hand by stating that he would not leave her that day. Then, respondent no. 2 took off his clothes and started to force himself on the petitioner but was saved by the public. Meanwhile, petitioner's father reached at the spot to save her but was beaten up by the respondent no. 2 and the co-accused. The petitioner and her father were medically examined in the hospital, her statement was recorded in the hospital and FIR was registered under Section 354/354-A/509/506/323/34 IPC. The petitioner named numerous complaints to DCP on receiving threats from the respondent no. 2 and his family members. Vide order dated 10.04.2017, Anticipatory Bail application of respondent no. 2 was dismissed but vide order 27.04.2017, the second Anticipatory Bail application was granted by the learned ASJ. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2017, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court has erred in passing the order dated 27.04.2017, as the same is based on conjectures and surmises; that the first application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 dismissed by learned ASJ and that the second application seeking anticipatory bail was not maintainable as there was no change of circumstances at the time of passing of impugned order dated 27.04.2017; that the main plea taken by the respondent no. 2 that previously many cases were registered against the petitioner cannot be the sole ground for the grant of bail as the same was urged by him even during the application of the first Bail application; that the nude photographs of the accused taken in public presence justifies the case of the prosecution that the accused attempted rape on the complaint and the learned ASJ has erred in ignoring this fact; that the photograph of her father reflecting injuries sustained by him is also on record; that the petitioner and her family members are threatened by the respondent no. 2 and complaints are lodged in that behalf; that the learned ASJ has not marked her presence and also did not record her submissions with regard to the objections raised by them; that the respondent no. 2 is required for custodial interrogation as his clothes are not recovered. In these circumstances, the grant of anticipatory bail in such serious offences should be set aside.