MEWA RAM Vs. N C T OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The allegation against the petitioner/landlord is of raping the prosecutrix, who is stated to be a minor (borne age more than 14 years but less than 17 years) and was living with her uncle and aunt at B-1/196 Vishnu Garden. The petitioner/landlord in July, 1996 is alleged to have called the prosecutrix to the first floor room. The prosecutrix, thinking that petitioner needed her assistance, to look after his son aged 2 years, went upstairs, since the petitioner/landlord's wife was away. It is alleged that the petitioner bolted the door from inside, undressed and raped her the whole night. The prosecutrix alleges in the FIR that the petitioner assured her that he would help her and arrange for her marriage as well as give the Uttam Nagar flat to her uncle. She is stated to have agreed to the petitioner's proposal. Petitioner/landlord is alleged to have threatened the prosecutrix to ruin her if she disclosed the incident to her family members. Petitioner is alleged to have continued to molest her from, July 1,996 to April, 1997, against her consent and wish. The medical examination and report did not reveal any fresh visible external injury. There was no sign of injury to the genitaps but the hymen was reported as torn(Qld).

(2.) In May, 1997, the prosecutrix with her Uncle had shifted residence. lt is alleged in the FIR that in May 1997 petitioner tried to have sex with her. Thereafter,'it: is.. stated that on 10.1.1998, the prosecutrix revealed the facts to her Uncle who took her to the police station for lodging the report. It is also revealed during the course of arguments that the prosecutrix's mother was also living with her. Petitioner/ landlord's case is that it is a totally false concocted and fabricated allegation, with a view of pressurise him to give up his claim for rental.

(3.) In view of the peculiar facts and especially the long time gap and period involved and the fact that even though the prosecutrix's mother was also living with her yet no report was lodged for a period of over one and half year, it is a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. Beside the petitioner, who has been in custody since 10.1.1998, is not required for any further investigation.