BAIL APPLN./115/2020 of PAWAN KUMAR Vs THE STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 115/2020PAWAN KUMAR..... PetitionerPAWAN KUMAR..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.R.K.Tarun, Adv.

versus

THE STATE

..... RespondentThroughMr.Amit Chadha, APP for State withSI Satyender Gulia, PS Mehrauli

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAITO R R

%13.02.2020

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in CCNo. 2877/2019 arising out of FIR No. 675/2018, registered for offencespunishable under Sections 354/354-D/507/509 IPC read with Sections67/67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at PS Mehrauli, Delhi.

The present petition has been filed on the ground that prosecutrix hasalready been examined by Trial Court and bare perusal of examination-in-chief of prosecutrix, fails to connect petitioner with offence punishableunder Section 354 IPC. All other sections invoked against petitioner arebailable offences. No CCTV footage has been obtained by InvestigatingAgency as place of alleged incident was at Saket Metro Station, whichmakes it clear that said provision has been added only for the purpose ofadding non-bailable offence in the FIR against petitioner.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Trial Court has failed tocomply with mandatory provisions of Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. as the firstdate fixed for the purpose of evidence was 21.08.2019, which was deferredseveral times and more specifically on 19.09.2019, 03.10.2019, 05.11.2019,03.12.2019, 17.12.2019, 06.01.2020 and 03.02.2020. Hence, it is evidentthat evidence is not likely to be concluded in near future.

It is further submitted that there is nothing to connect petitioner withalleged offence as mobile number which was allegedly used towardssending of the alleged obscene messages to prosecutrix, was allotted topetitioner only on 25.03.2019, as per CAP details rendered by telecomCompany, whereas alleged messages were sent to prosecutrix in month ofSeptember 2018, thereby showing that petitioner is not connected withalleged offence.

Further, with regard to offence under Section 67-A of IT Act, as thereis nothing to show any dissemination whatsoever, of any morphedphotograph of prosecutrix, to anybody from the phone of petitioner, whichwas allegedly seized by concerned police officials, thereby showing thatpetitioner is not connected with the alleged offence.

It is further submitted that photograph and obscene messages are alsopart of charge-sheet. No prudent person will send vulgar messages of herown sister to anyone but in present case, it is on record that petitioner sentvulgar messages about her sister to prosecutrix.

Moreover, the SIM which was recovered by Investigating Agencywas purchased by petitioner on 25.3.2019, whereas messages are of year2018.

However, without commenting upon merits of case, I am of the view

that the present case is fit for bail. Petitioner is in custody since 11.4.2019.Therefore, petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing personalbond in sum of ₹15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Before parting with order, it is relevant to mention that nothingcontained in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits ofcase. Trial Court shall not get influenced by the observations made by thisCourt, while passing final orders in the trial.

The present bail application is allowed and disposed of.

Copy of this order be transmitted to the Jail Superintendent and TrialCourt concerned for compliance.

Order dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

FEBRUARY 13, 2020/rk

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J