BAIL APPLN./1350/2017 of ABHISHEK KALITA Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 1350/2017 & Crl. M.A. no. 11201/2017ABHISHEK KALITA..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Advocate withMr. Amitej Kumar Nagar, Ms. ArushiTangri and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh,Advs.ABHISHEK KALITA..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Advocate withMr. Amitej Kumar Nagar, Ms. ArushiTangri and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh,Advs.

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI..... RespondentThrough:Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP with InspectorKamini Gupta, P.S. South Campus forthe StateMr. Amitabh Neehar, Adv. for theThrough:Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP with InspectorKamini Gupta, P.S. South Campus forthe StateMr. Amitabh Neehar, Adv. for thecomplainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R%18.07.2017

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially theFIR was registered under Sections 66-E/67 of the Information TechnologyAct, 2000 and Section 506 of the IPC.Complainant/prosecutrix hadadmitted that she was in live-in relationship with the petitioner. The onlyallegation levelled by her is that pictures shared by her with the petitionerwere uploaded on the websites without her consent. Even she was not sureat the time of lodging of FIR that pictures were uploaded by the petitioner as

she had only suspected the hand of the petitioner. It is further submitted thatpetitioner is suffering from psychiatric disorder.Subsequently, in herstatementrecordedunderSection164oftheCr.P.C.,complainant/prosecutrix has levelled allegations of unnatural, oral and analsex. It is submitted that petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail as hehas joined the investigation.

Learned APP, who is assisted by the learned counsel for thecomplainant, has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to thepetitioner. It is submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164of the Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has levelled allegations of threats extended by thepetitioner. She has categorically stated that petitioner had forcible oral andanal sex with her. Accordingly, Section 377 IPC was added in the FIR. It isfurther submitted that complainant has also stated that after she broke therelations with petitioner, he started blackmailing her, inasmuch as uploadedher photographs. Learned APP submits that subsequently, it also came tothe notice of the prosecutrix that her nude photographs and videos were alsouploaded. During the investigations such material has been collected by theInvestigating Officer. Some of the nude photographs are in the investigationfile and have been perused by this Court.It is submitted that custodial

interrogation is required.

Keeping in mind the above facts and circumstances and in view of theserious allegations levelled in the FIR, I am not inclined to extend thebenefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Bail application is dismissed.Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.

JULY 18, 2017rb

A.K. PATHAK, J.