The Supreme Court has dismissed today a plea filed by a woman challenging the anticipatory bail granted to a man accused of raping her in a lounge at Laxmi Nagar School Zone, Delhi. The complainant, a mother of two children and a resident of Jaipur, developed a friendship with the accused on Facebook and came to Delhi to meet him when the alleged incident took place.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kholi dismissed the plea. During the hearing today, Advocate Brajesh Pandey, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the accused is out on anticipatory bail from day one, only when her client approached the National Commission for Women, the FIR got registered. I have also complained against the Investigating Officer, the accused is enjoying the anticipatory bail from Day 1, he argued.
The bench enquired about the petitioner as to why she travelled all the way from Jaipur to Delhi to meet the accused. The counsel replied, she was called for job purposes, it does not mean she is asking for physical relations with the person and he has taken videography and photographs.
CJI NV Ramana questioned, “Where is it written in the FIR, is it written that you were called for the job purpose? Read the line in the FIR, an allegation that you were called to Delhi on the pretext of providing you a job.”
“It straight away says you become friends on Facebook and he called you and you came,” said the CJI.
The counsel replied, “I am not denying friendship but that was for job purposes.”
Justice Hima Kohli came down heavily on the counsel and said, “You said something else in the FIR and now you trying to prove the case that you went for a job and you voluntarily become friends with him, you have voluntarily gone to that place where you established a relationship and call it forcible. You don’t talk about the job anywhere in FIR.”
The counsel for petitioner said, “When I reached Delhi, he had taken my 2-year daughter and pressurize for a physical relationship.”
Justice Hima Kohli said, “Every minute you are disproving your case.”
The High Court while granting anticipatory bail to the accused had noted that the complainant is a married woman and in spite of having two children, she developed a friendship through Facebook with petitioner/accused (Prince Singh @ Prince Kumar).
Moreover, she herself visited Delhi and met petitioner where an alleged incident has taken place, the High Court had further noted.
It is important to note that the chargesheet was not filed at the time of granting the anticipatory bail. Learned APP had informed that it was at advance stage and would be filed under Section 376 against the accused/petitioner.
As per the case of the prosecution, prosecutrix made a written complaint to the SHO of P.S. Shakarpur on 06.07.2019, for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and on the basis of that the an FIR has been registered wherein stated that she had received a friend request from Facebook account of petitioner and she accepted his friend request. Thereafter, they started chatting with each other through messenger and therefore friendship developed between them.
Before the High Court, the counsel for accused had submitted the alleged incident took place on 10.01.2019 but FIR was registered on 06.07.2019 after an unexplained delay of six months. “There is no medical document to support the averments of complainant. Moreover, there is no public or independent witness to substantiate the allegation of complainant. Even after an alleged incident, complainant was in touch with petitioner through phone calls for about one week,” he had submitted.
Further, he had averred that, “Complainant is a major and she knows how to take innocent persons into her clutches and extort money from them. She is a resident of Jaipur and for what purpose she came to Delhi. Moreover, she is a married lady and having two children.”
The Delhi High Court had granted anticipatory bail to the accused upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety in the like amount subject to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/SHO/IO concerned. Furthermore, it had also directed him to cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation by police officer, as and when required.
Case Title- XY Vs State of NCT and Anr.