Delhi High Court: A bail application was filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)/Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail in FIR for offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Neb Sarai, Delhi. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., dismissed the bail application as the attempt to weaponize the complainant’s marital status and professional background to diminish the gravity of the allegations is unacceptable.
As per the complaint filed by the complainant is that she was living in Delhi since 2018 with her children, while her husband was working in Gujarat. She had come in contact with the accused aged about 26 years, through her sister, as he was working in Kuwait with her sister’s husband. As alleged, the accused had begun talking to the complainant over the phone and had subsequently enticed her. He had given her ₹3.5 lakhs to enroll in the course, which the complainant had promised to repay after securing a job. Thereafter, the accused had begun blackmailing her, compelling her to comply with his sexual demands. The complainant had complied with whatever the accused had asked her . He allegedly had instructed her to undress during WhatsApp video calls.
She has further alleged that at the end of 2023, the accused had come to Delhi had shown her a naked video of hers on his mobile phone and had forcibly established physical relations with her for two days under the threat of making her videos public. He had also made a video of the complainant in which she was forced to admit having obtained ₹5 lakh from the accused. Later, he started defaming her by sending the said videos to people in her native village. Later, he posted her inappropriate video on social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered on 17-01-2024 and the complainant was medically examined at AIIMS, Delhi and her statement under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded. The present accused/applicant was arrested on 20-01-2024.
The Court noted that in the bail application, it has been repeatedly mentioned that the complainant was working in a massage parlour, however, the mere fact that the complainant was working in a massage parlour does not present any evidence of her being engaged in illicit or unlawful activities and thus, cannot be used to undermine or mitigate the seriousness of the alleged offences committed against her. In any case, the factum of her working in a massage parlour was not hidden by her at any point of time and knowing so, the applicant had befriended her and continued his relationship with her.
The Court remarked that “while on one hand, it has been averred on behalf of the accused in the bail application, and also argued before this Court by the learned counsel, that he was in a friendly and consensual relationship with the victim, but on the other, he wants to blame the complainant of having entered into a relationship with him, allegedly consensual, despite being married — totally forgetting that the friendship was mutual, and not unilateral. While the accused now wants to categorize and differentiate this friendship as if imposed on him by the complainant after filing of the present complaint and plead innocence, his own pleadings and arguments reflect to the contrary”
The Court concluded that while the first sexual encounter may have been consensual, the subsequent ones were allegedly based on blackmail, with the accused taking advantage of the videos to exert control over the complainant. The accused’s actions in preparing the videos and using them to manipulate and sexually exploit the complainant prima-facie reflects a strategy of abuse and exploitation, transcending any initial consensual interaction. In view of these allegations, it is evident that the accused’s conduct transcended the boundaries of a mere friendship. The relationship between the complainant and the accused cannot be termed as a “friendship simpliciter” wherein financial assistance was extended by one friend to another. Instead, it prima facie appears that the accused had exploited this relationship under the guise of a loan transaction. A loan arrangement, even between friends, does not entitle one party to exploit the other’s vulnerability or dignity.
The Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and seriousness of the offence, did not find it a fit case for grant of bail.
[Sudhir Kumar v State NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 4091/2024, decided on 17-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
