Kuldeep Mathur, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and he had no involvement with regard to the alleged offences. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and submitted that from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the prosecutrix was subjected to assault and rape by one Parmeshwar. In the statement, she has clearly stated that while committing sexual assault and rape upon her, the incident was recorded by the present petitioner who also threatened to put the video on on-line social media platforms, thereby bringing disrepute to the name of the prosecutrix. He further submitted that the video so recorded by the present petitioner was also made viral on social media platform .
Thus, looking into the active role of the present petitioner in the commission of the present crime, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Therefore, the present bail application is rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh bail application after statements of the complainant or prosecutrix is recorded.
It is expected that the statements of the complainant shall be recorded by the competent trial court on priority basis.
