Ranjeet Kumar @ Jeetu v. State NCT of Delhi

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J NOVEMBER 03 , 2017 gr//

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Order reserved on 1st November, 2017 Order pronounced on 03rd November, 2017 RANJEET KUMAR @ JEETU ……Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. Versus STATE …..Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with SI. Subhash Chand, P.S. R.K. Puram. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred "Cr.PC."), the petitioner seeks grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 443/2016 under Sections 363/341/354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC") & 8 of the POCSO Act registered at Police Station R. K. Puram. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.10.2016, Nagma complainant approached the police station, R.K. Puram and stated that she lives in R.K. Puram with her family and cousin sister. That at about 1 pm her cousin sister went to public toilet. That a girl named XXX came to her house and informed that a boy named Jeetu had taken her cousin sister towards Nalah. She immediately rushed towards the Jhuggi nearby Nalah and saw that he had put one of his hands in the nicker (underwear) of my cousin sister. On seeing her, the petitioner ran away. She further stated that on being asked, the prosecutrix informed that the accused lured her with cloth, pencil and copy and was caressing her waist putting one hand in her nicker (underwear) and was having physical contact of her body with his body. On the complainant of the sister of the prosecutrix, FIR was registered and chargesheet was filed. Status report is on record. 3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case; that there are serious contradictions between the statement of the complainant (PW-1), the prosecutrix (PW-2) and child witness (PW-3) and hence the petitioner deserves to be released on Regular (Bail); that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the petitioner; that there is no chance of petitioner for absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. 4. Per Contra, Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioner is not liable to be granted Regular bail as he has been involved in the commission of a serious offence which is henious in nature; that the accused may evade the process of law, threaten the complainant and may also tamper with the evidences which is being collected during investigation as the petitioner resides in the same vicinity; that the statements of the complainant (PW-1), the prosecutrix (PW-2) and child witness (PW-3) are trustworthy, consistent and also validates the case of the prosecution. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004 (7) SCC 528), the Apex court has laid down the principles of granting or refusing bail and held as under: "The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in supp