AMIT MAHENDRABHAI BHINDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.11208003221110 of 2022 registered with Rajkot City, Gandhigram - II Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 376(2)(f)(k)(n), 506(1) and 114 of the IPC.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that somewhere in the year 2019, complainant and her husband Mayur Raninga were working in the shop of the petitioner in marketing department. That the shop of the petitioner is named as Ganesh Gold and deals in jewellery. On a date which the complainant does not recollect, it is alleged that the petitioner called her to his residence in the flat as mentioned in the cause title, i.e. in Sankalp 3 Apartments under the guise of checking and tallying the accounts since the shops would be closed on account of Diwali holidays. When she arrived at the residence of the petitioner, he was alone and taking advantage of the situation, he made illicit demand from the complainant. Taking advantage of her vulnerable situation, the accused No.1 is alleged to have committed offence under Sec. 376 and also taken nude photos of her. It is alleged that she was threatened to make the photos viral if she complained to anyone. Thereafter, misusing the photos, the petitioner also committed rape on her on different occasions and thereby committed the offences as alleged in the FIR. Thus the offence as aforesaid was committed and FIR came to be lodged.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr.Nirav Thakkar appearing for the petitioner has thoroughly read the FIR to contend that FIR is filed belatedly almost after three years of the alleged incident. He would further submit that FIR is filed to counterblast the various proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the husband of the first informant. Taking this Court through Annexure - B, learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed a criminal case under the NI Act against the husband of the first informant on 17/07/2021 alleging that he has not paid Rs.28.00 Lacs. Referring to Annexure-C, he would submit that husband and sister of the first informant gave one application to the DCP, Rajkot alleging certain financial allegations against the petitioner which was filed prior to filing of the FIR and registered the Chapter case; but in the said complaint, at nowhere the allegations of rape was levelled against the petitioner though as per FIR husband of victim was knowing of alleged incident. He would further submit that since the husband of the first informant did not get any relief to settle the financial burden he owes to the petitioner, he in connivance with first informant filed the present false and frivolous FIR, and implicated petitioner in frivolous FIR, as accused 3.1 Reading the FIR, learned Advocate would further submit that alleged incident took place between 01/11/2019 to 30/01/2020 at the place viz., Flat No.504, Sankalp-3 Appartment, Sadhu Vasvani Road, Rajkot; but the said allegation is false as the father of the petitioner has purchased this property only on 24/02/2021. Referring to Annexure-F, learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit that allegations are false and frivolous as the frivolity has been attached with the prosecution. He would further submit that even if the FIR is taken at its face value, it does not constitute the offence of rape as non-consensual act between the parties. He would further submit that since the flat was purchased in the year 2021, the question of committing rape or sexual act for the alleged period as aforesaid does not arise. He would submit that if this aspect is assessed, it would show that FIR is not only false but frivolous one.