In its latest Judgment, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to the accused arrested in connection with FIR NO. 1091/2014 registered at PS Malviya Nagar under section 376/370/34 of the IPC.
The facts of the case are as follow:
The FIR was registered at the instance of Ms ‘K’ a twenty-year girl, who had studied till the sixth standard and stated to be a resident of Imphal. She stated that she and her friend Ms ‘A’ visited Imphal a month ago where they met a woman named Munao, who was from Nagaland.
She further stated that Munao promised to secure jobs for them in a beauty parlor in Delhi and she also introduced Ms ‘K’ and ‘A’ to a boy called Jimmy who belonged to Assam. Thereafter, Ms ‘K’ and ‘A’ were brought to Delhi by that boy Jimmy and handed over to the petitioner.
The petitioner both the girls in a flat but did not get them any job. On the other hand, the petitioner raped not only Ms ‘K’ but Ms ‘A’. She further told that the petitioner also sent some other boys to exploit them sexually on two-three occasions.
She also disclosed that though the petitioner sometimes gave them some money, he continued to exploit them sexually. It was alleged that the petitioner brought them to Delhi on the pretext of giving Jobs and then kept sexually exploiting as well as raped them both. Therefore, the petitioner filed this application for bail.
Submissions Of The Petitioner
· The petitioner based on the statement of Ms. ‘K’ made under section 164 argued that she agreed that nothing was done by the petitioner except that he brought two boys with him and that she slept with those two boys. He further argued that none of the boys nor petitioner gave any money to her.
· The petitioner submitted that Ms ‘K’ had alleged that on 26.08.2014 the petitioner brought three boys who asked her and Ms ‘A’ to drink with them and after the consumption of the drink, she left the house. Thereafter, she sat in a park where a girl saw her and called the police.
· He also admitted that MLCs of Ms ‘K’ and ‘A’ also did not reveal a history of any physical or sexual assault but they had been brought in drunk condition.
· He argued that the petitioner was prosecuted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 as the victim was stated to be under eighteen years. He denied that this shall not be accepted as the same was based upon the school leaving certificate of the eighth standard whereas Ms ‘K’ had accepted to be studied till the sixth standard only. He argued that Ms ‘K’ was between twenty and twenty-two years of age as per the observation of the Ossification test. Furthermore, she disclosed that she was of twenty years in FIR and her statement under section 164.
· The petitioner submitted that only Ms ‘K’ had been examined but Ms ‘A’ was not found. He also admitted that the petitioner was in custody for over six years and the trial was unlikely to be completed shortly.
Submission Of The Prosecution
The prosecution case was based upon that Ms ‘K’ and ‘A’ had been found in an inebriated condition in a park.
Findings Of The Delhi High Court
The Delhi High considering the fact that the bone ossification report suggested the age of girl between 20 to 22 years and also the fact that accused in jail for six years, granted bail.
Case Details:
Title: Ashu vs State
Date of Order: October 13, 2020
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru
Appearances: Advocate Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey for the petitioner, and Mr. Ravi Nayak APP for the state along with Inspector Pankaj PS Malviya Nagar.
Story by Rohit Mathur-Intern
