Sanjay v. State Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr (2021) - Bail u/s 439 CrPC r/w S. 482

• JUDEGMENT SUMMARY: Sanjay v. State Govt of NCT Delhi & ANR
• DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 12^th February, 2021
• JUDGES: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
• PARTIES: Sanjay (Plaintiff) | State Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr. (Respondent)

SUBJECT

The following judgement deals the disposal of the present bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 656/2020 registered U/s 376/506 IPC at Police station Ranhola, Delhi

AN OVERVIEW

1. To shed light on the allegations against the petitioner as per the complaint of the victim/complaint are that she met one Rajiv more than 6 years ago when she alongwith her husband mortgaged property bearing No. A-154 Sainik Enclave Gali No. 4 for a total amount of Rs. 4 lakh. Stated by the complainant, she met one Sanjeev in the office of Rajeev.
2. On 29 September 2016, she (complainant) received a call from Sanjay (present petitioner) who asked her to meet him one time by saying he had taken the documents of her property from Sanjeev. She went to meet Sanjay, who gave her a glass of cold drink and after drinking the same she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness after about 2 hours, petitioner showed her nude photos and videos. Then petitioner blackmailed her to have physical relations with him. After that petitioner called her to his home and forced her to make physical relations with him by threatening her and showing her nude photos and videos. According to the complainant, he continued this till May, 2019.
3. The complainant further alleged that she told the petitioner that he has ruined her life and asked him to keep her but the petitioner was not ready to keep her with him. On this basis, allegations made by the complainant/victim, the present case was registered.
4. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner hat the petitioner has been falsely implicated and it was a consensual relationship which is evident from the fact that respondent No. 2 has got the name of the petitioner permanently tattooed on her forearm which shows her love towards the petitioner.
5. The contention stated by the counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecutrix was in love with the petitioner and she got engraved tattoo of the petitioner on her forearm. When he was not willing to be with her, she came to court.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Criminal Procedural Code

• Section 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody
• Section 482- Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice

Indian Penal Code

• Section 376 - Punishment for sexual assault – 1 (a) whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section(2) commits sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine
• Section 506- Punishment for criminal intimidation. —Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.

ISSUES

The following are the major issues-

• Whether the complainant has manipulated her rights to get want she wants? Should she be penalized for false accusations?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. One of the major arguments is that petitioner called her to his home and forced her to make physical relations with him by threatening her and showing her nude photos and videos. According to the complainant, he continued this till May, 2019. When she (complainant / victim) demanded her property papers, petitioner replied that the papers are now with one Satish who is the financer and now she would have to make him happy, only then she will get the papers. When the complainant/victim refused the same stating that she would make a complaint against the petitioner to the police then, petitioner threatened her to kill. According to the complainant/victim last time petitioner had made physical relation with her on 6 December 2019. It is further alleged by the victim/complainant that she told petitioner that he has ruined her life and asked him to keep her but the petitioner was not ready to keep her with him. On the basis of above allegations made by the complainant/victim, the present case was registered.
2. It was further submitted that respondent No. 2 had sent photograph of the tattoo to the petitioner via email on two occasions and has clicked selfies with the petitioner, exchanged garlands with him, attended festivities and celebrated functions which is evident from the photographs filed on record. He additionally submitted that the respondent No. 2 has even sent friend request to the petitioner on face book. It is submitted for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and it was a consensual relationship which is evident from the fact that respondent No. 2 has got the name of the petitioner permanently tattooed on her forearm which shows her love towards the petitioner and when she failed to convince the petitioner to maintain ties then she got the present case registered.
3. In addition, prosecutrix kept quiet for 3 long years and did not make any complaint against the petitioner and she even did not inform her husband about the acts of the petitioner, how is that possible?
4. It can be deducted by any person that the making of tattoo is an art and special machine is required for the same. In addition to the above, it is also not easy to make such a tattoo which is on the forearm of the complainant if there is some resistance from the other side. As it is not everybody’s job and it is also not the case of the prosecutrix that the petitioner had anything to do with the tattoo business. Hence, it may be willingly that the tattoo was done.
5. One of the paramount allegations of the complainant/prosecutrix is that she was confined in the house by the petitioner from 25.01.2020 to 15.04.2020, nevertheless, the charge sheet revealed that the said house was taken on rent by the complainant herself and the enquiries from one Naveen Sharma, landlord made the big reveal that the prosecutrix was residing alone in the said house. Hence, this allegation was also nullified.
6. One vital allegation was that the petitioner blackmailed the complainant with her nude photos, upon when, at the time of arrest the mobile phone of the petitioner was seized but no nude photographs were found. It also further revealed in the status report that there were no recording of threats as alleged by the prosecutrix.
7. The judge then commenting not on the merits, but on the facts and circumstances of this case, the application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below. The bail application is disposed of accordingly.
8. Subsequently, all pending applications (if any) are also disposed of accordingly.
9. In conclusion of all the fact stated above previously, the Court admitted the accused to bail.

CONCLUSION

The approach adopted by the High Court is a progressive one on various levels. It was maintained by the accused that the complainant was in love in with him but alleged rape when he refused to carry forward their ‘consensual relationship’. As claimed by the complainant, there were no nude photographs of her reportedly found in the man’s phone during the time of the arrest. Hence, dismissing her initial claim. Hence, cumulating all the above said claims the court granted bail to the accused on 12^th February 2021.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgment