Vishesh Khokhar v. State

ORDER %

20.05.2013 1-Petitioner-VisheshKhokhar seeks anticipatory bail under Section Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.228/2013 under Section 376/312/506/34IPC registeredwith police station Kajuri Khas. Status report has been filed.

¶2Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner urged that allegationsagainstthe petitionerby the complainant,postedas a constable inPGR, are false and fabricated. The petitionerneverpromisedto marry the prosecutrix. She came into contactwith the petitionerin 2010 when both were working together during Common Wealth Games. There was Page1 of4 Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. no love affairs betweenthem. She did not lodge any complainantsince 2010. The presentcomplaintis motivatedas the prosecutrixhas come to know aboutthe marriageofthe petitionergoingto be solemnizedwiththe girl residing in her locality. There is no evidence to corroboratethe alleged incident of rape and abortion. The petitioner has clean antecedentsand is ready to join the investigationas and when required. His custodialinterrogationis not requiredas the statementofprosecutrix has alreadybeen recordedunder Section164 Cr.P.C. Brotherand Bhabi ofthe petitionerhave alreadybeen grantedanticipatorybail. His father has been granted interim bail till 15.05.2013 Reliance was placed on JagdishNautiyal Vs.State in which bail apphcationNo.l317/2012was disposedofvide orderdated29.11.2012and PradeepKumar@Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs.StateofBiharandAnr. (Crl.A.No.1086/2007)decided on 07.08.2007.

¶3Learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutorhas opposed grant of anticipatorybail. He urgedthat custodialinterrogationofthe petitioneris required to ascertain as to from where the medicine to terminate the pregnancywas arranged.

¶4I have considered the statements of the parties and have examinedthe record. It revealsthat the prosecutrixlodgedcomplainton

30.04.2013 and levelled serious allegations against the petitioner for obtainingher consentfor sexualintercourseon the promiseto marry her. She furtherallegedthattwice she becamepregnantbutthepregnancywas terminated. She was assured time and again by the petitioner and her familymembersfor her marriagewiththe petitioner. Finallythey refused to performthe marriage. She further stated that due to the conduct and 2of4 behaviour of the petitionerand his family members she attempted to commit suicide and consumedpoisonoussubstance. She was taken to GTB hospital on 30.04.2013 at about 10.45 A.M. and was medically examined.

¶5The prosecutrixwas posted as Constable in PGR in Delhi police during Common Wealth Games in 2010. The petitioner was workingSub-Inspector,ahigherrankthanthatofthe prosecutgrix.In her ^ statementsunder Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.,the prosecutrix made categoricalassertionsthat she was forced to have sexual relations with the petitioneron his promiseto marry. She becamepregnanttwice. However,the pregnancywas got terminatedby procuringmedicineby the petitioner. She further levelled allegationsof harassmentand threats forcing her to take extreme step to consume poisonous substance. In Uday Vs.StateofKarnatakaAIR 2003 SCC 1639, it has been observed that there is no straightjacketformula for determiningwhether consent givenby the prosecutrixto sexualintercoursewas voluntaryor whetherit was under a misconceptionof fact. Where the prosecurtix willing consentedto havingsexual intercoursewith the appellantwith whom she was deeply in love, not becausehe promisedto marry her, only then it was taken as a consentnot in consequenceof any misconceptionof facts. In the instant case, the petitionerwas superior in rank and allegedly indulged in regular sexual intercourse with the petitioner for long duration. The prosecutrixpurportedlyapproachedhim and his family membersfor fulfilmentof the promiseand when there was denialto that, she consumed poisonous substanceto commit suicide. Circumstances prima facia revealthat at no stage the petitionerwas havingan intention Page3of4 or inclinationto marry the prosecutrix. It appears that the promise to marry allegedly held out by him was a mere hoax to obtain the prosecutrix's consent for sexual intercourse. The case is still at initial stage and the petitioner has not joined the investigation. Non-bailable warrants have been issuedto ensurehis presence.

¶6Consideringthe severity of the offence and the allegations that the pregnancy was terminated twice illegally, I find no sufficient groundto grantanticipatorybailto the petitionerwho wasa public servant in activeservicewith Delhipolice as Sub-Inspector. It is to be ascertained as to how and underwhat circumstancesillegalterminationof pregnancy took place, where, how and by whom.

¶7In the light of the above discussion, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed. S.P^GARG, J MAY 20, 2013 sa Page4 of4

$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 809/2013 VISHESH KHOKHAR Petitioner Through: Mr.SudhirNandrajog,Sr.Advocate with Mr.AjayDigpal, Mr.Neerajand Ms.Aarti Bansal, Advocates. versus STATE Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. SI Monika, PS Khajuri Kiias. Mr.Vireshwar Tyagi, Advocate for the Complainant. CORAM; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG