BAIL APPLN./1265/2016 of VIKAS @ VICKY Vs STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+Bail Application No.1265/2016

Date of Decision: 9[th]August, 2016

VIKAS @ VICKY

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr.Vinod Kumar Goyal andMr.Abhinav Singh, Advs.

versus

STATE

..... Respondents

ThroughMr.Manjeet Arya, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S.TEJI, J.

1.The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitionerin FIR No.134/2016 under Section 377/506 IPC read with Section 6 ofPOCSO Act registered at Police Station: Kalyan Puri, Delhi.

2.The case in the nutshell is that on 16.03.2016 complaint wasreceived at police station Kalyan Puri by one Smt.Savita w/o OmPrakash R/o: adjoining to Chuhare Wali Factory, Kichri Pur Village,Delhi, to the effect that she is residing at the above address with herfamily on rent from the last two months and doing private job and that

on the said date at about 3 P.M. her son Bablu aged 10 years had goneto lay at Gurudwara Khichripur where at around 4.30 P.M. thepetitioner took her son and persuaded him of having bath at pit nearCNG Pump, Khichripur and on reaching there threatened her son tohold his penis in his mouth and thereafter her son under fear took hispenis in mouth. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to loosen the pajama ofher son when people who were standing by saw him, caught him andtook him to the police station and thereafter immediately her son camehome and told her the entire incident.The people who had caughthold of the petitioner reached Gurudwara Khichripur where thecomplainant also reached with her son and he identified the petitioneras the boy who had committed the wrong act with him. The son of thepetitioner was thereafter taken for medical examination at LBSHospital to the complainant objected. Based on the circumstances, acase under Section 377/506 IPC was registered.

3.After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed inthe matter on 24.05.2016. The charges are yet to be framed.Thepetitioner’s bail application has been rejected thrice by the court ofsession.

4.In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner hastaken the grounds that the allegations levelled in the complaint arefalse and fabricated; that the prosecution has filed the challan insupport of its case and has relied upon the statement of the victimrecorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where he has stated that nooffence was committed against him and the whole story wasconcocted and there was no allegation made by him against thepetitioner; that the complainant as well in her statement recordedunder Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that no offence was committedagainst her son and the whole story was concocted and there was noallegation made by the complainant against the petitioner; that therewas no other independent witnesses/ eye witnesses cited by the policein the list of witnesses to be examined in the present case; that therewas no MLC done by the prosecution which clearly shows that nooffence was committed by the petitioner; that three bail applicationshave been rejected by the learned ASJ without taking considerationthe facts and circumstances of the case; that the petitioner is youngboy aged around 22 years and has been falsely implicated in thepresent case and is behind the bars since 17.03.2016.

5.Per contra, the learned APP for the State has vehementlyopposed the bail application on the ground that the victim is yet to beexamined; that this is crime against the society and should be dealtwith heavy hand and that if relased on bail, the petitioner is likely totamper with evidence and influence the witnesses;

6.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused therecord. The petitioner while committing the wrong act with the victimwas caught by the public and later the victim identified him as theperson who had attempted to do the wrong act with him; the witnessesincluding the complainant and the victim are yet to be examined; thereis strong apprehension that, if released on bail, the petitioner mayinfluence the witnesses and tamper with evidence; that so far as thegrounds raised by the petitioner for grant of bail to the petitioner areconcerned, the same cannot be gone into at this stage.

7.In view of the gravity of offence and specific role attributed tothe petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8.Before parting with the order, this court would like to place iton record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been statedhereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of

disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothingcontained in this order shall be construed as expression of finalopinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in thecase which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized ofthe trial.

9.The present bail application is accordingly dismissed.

AUGUST 09, 2016dm

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE