Delhi High Court: In an application filed by 68-year-old man accused, of rape alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 354A1, 354C2, 3763, 3774, 5065 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’), seeking regular bail, Manoj Kumar Ohri, J., granted the accused regular bail subject to certain conditions.
The accused had been in custody since 05-04-2024. The accused is a 68-year-old man and his sister-in-law, the prosecutrix, is a 46-year-old woman. The accused stated that he was a resident of the USA and had been providing financial help to the prosecutrix after her husband’s demise in 2017.
It was contended by the accused that he had last sent money to the prosecutrix on 30-04-2023. He further contended that he arrived in India on 02-03-2023, stayed at the prosecutrix’s residence. Thereafter, the parties visited Amritsar, where both stayed at a hotel for 3 days and 2 nights. The accused said that the complaint was only filed on 05-04-2023, and the FIR was on 14-06-2023.
It was submitted by the accused that the prosecutrix had sent him messages prior to him coming to India and a perusal of their WhatsApp communication would reveal that the parties were in a consensual relationship. The passport of the accused had already been seized and supplementary challan had also been filed against him.
The State opposed the bail application and submitted that the accused had exploited the financial condition of the victim, and had not only raped his sister-in-law, but had also circulated objectionable videos and photographs without her consent. The prosecutrix also supported her version in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’).
Upon hearing both parties and perusal of evidence, the Court stated that both the accused and the prosecutrix were mature adults who were also related to each other. The State submitted that the I.O. did not recollect seeing any objectionable messages, photographs or videos in either of the mobile phones that were seized.
The Court observed that a prima-facie reading of the FIR revealed that the prosecutrix herself stated that she got involved with the accused, as he gained her trust and that the photos and videos were shared while the prosecutrix was in India and the accused in the USA. The Court further took note of the fact that the parties stayed together at a hotel in Amritsar, records of which had been seized.
In the given circumstances the Court granted the accused regular bail, subject to certain conditions. However, the Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the contentions of either party, as trial was pending in the matter.
[X v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5137, decided on 26-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for accused: Harsh Tikoo, Manish, Shakti, Tulika, Rehba Alvi, Pratibha, Advocates
Advocate for State: Aashneet Singh, APP, Arpit Jain, Advocates
1. Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
