- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 17 October 2022
- Bench
- Talwant Singh
- Case no.
- BAIL APPLN. 1999/2022
Judgment
TALWANT SINGH, J OCTOBER 17, 2022 pa
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order pronounced on 17.10.2022 + BAIL APPLN. 1999/2022 SHAHANA PARVEEN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Mr. Aayushman Agarwal, Mr. Azeem Mehmood Alvi, Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Mr. Sonawar Choudhary, Advocates. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. N.S. Bajwa, APP for State. Insp. Praveen Kumar, PS DIU/NE/Distt. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Talwant Singh, J.: 1. The petitioner has moved the present bail application in FIR No.292/2022 registered at PS Bhajanpura on 27.03.2022 under Section 388/342/427/323/170/120B/34 IPC. 2. The charge sheet was filed on 24.05.2022. The petitioner was arrested on 27.03.2022. Regular bail application was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the Court of Sessions. 2.1 The bail application No.1418/2022 filed before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.05.2022. After filing of the charge sheet, lastly a bail application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 17.06.2022. The allegation against the present petitioner is that she tried to extort money from the complainant and his friends and she demanded Rs.2 lacs each as extortion money for releasing the complainant and his friends and threatened them to implicate them in false rape cases. 2.2 It is also the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is allegedly in regular practice with other co-accused persons, in extorting money from unsuspected boys and girls after giving them a room on hourly basis, and thereafter, threatening them to file false complaints against them. The petitioner has denied the said allegations. She claims to be a victim in the present FIR. 2.3 On 26.03.2022, when the petitioner went to her house, she caught the complainant along with his 3 other friends in compromising situation. On questioning, the complainant replied that the co-accused Momin had rented them the house on hourly basis to spend their leisure time on consideration of money. The petitioner told the complainant that she will complaint about the incident, the complainant tried to offer money to the petitioner to let them go but she refused. 2.4 The accused was beaten up by the complainant and his friends. The petitioner asked her sister to record the video of the complainant and his friends mercilessly beating her. On 27.03.2022, the petitioner went to the Police Station to lodge the complaint against the complainant and his friends and co-accused Momin, where she was arrested and falsely implicated in the present case. She was again mercilessly beaten by the police officials. 2.5 The learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the time of first remand had observed the injuries. All other Sections, except Section 170 IPC are bailable in nature, despite that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. After recording of the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Section 387 IPC was added, which is a non-bailable offence carrying imprisonment up to 7 years. 2.6 There are glaring contradictions/discrepancies in the statement of the complainant recorded on different occasions. The case squarely falls within the ambit of the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0559/2014'. No notice or summons were ever issued to the petitioner. The arrest of the petitioner is illegal. The petitioner is a social worker. There is an ongoing dispute between the petitioner and her husband and that is the reason that he had given a statement against her. 2.7 On 20.03.2022, the petitioner had made a complaint vide GD No.095A against the co-accused Momin for being involved in illegal activities and not vacating the house of the petitioner. 2.8 Charge sheet stands filed, so the petitioner has approached the Court for regular bail on the grounds that she has been falsely implicated; impugned order dated 17.06.2022 is erroneous; there is no evidence against the applicant; none of the offences provide punishment beyond period of 7 year
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.