1. By this petition the petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 61/2013 under Sections 376(2)(f)/109/34 IPC registered at PS Connaught Place.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner who was related to the prosecutrix was residing at Muzaffarpur. From the evidence
of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses and the school she attended, it is evident that she never stayed with the petitioner but at Darbangha
with her maternal uncle and aunt. The FIR in question has been registered belatedly after the petitioner opposed the marriage of the prosecutrix with
her present husband. Petitioner at no point of time had access to the prosecutrix and to wreak vengeance she lodged the FIR in question. The FIR
was registered to wreak vengeance is fortified by the fact that the prosecutrix neither identified the room at Western Court, Janpath nor the place at
Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar where she alleged that she was sexually assaulted. Despite the petitioner having been in custody since 30th
November, 2013 only 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 37 cited. The fact that the petitioner is innocent is fortified by the
statement of PW-9 and PW-10, Mama and Mami of the prosecutrix with whom she had been residing. The reply to the application filed by the
petitioner under RTI to the CBSE reveals that no Holy Mission School existed in Muzaffarpur and thus the prosecutrix stayed at Darbangha with her
maternal uncle. Despite the fact that the prosecutrix stayed in Darbangha from 2000 and in Hyderabad in 2006 she filed the FIR only in the year 2013.
Since the prosecutrix has already been examined and the trial is likely to take time, petitioner be granted bail. Reliance is placed on the decision in
Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. decided by Supreme Court on 2nd December, 2010 vide CRL.Appeal
No.2271/2010.
3. A status report has been filed. As per the status report on 24th April, 2013 a complaint was received from Ms. ‘X’ aged 26 years wherein
she stated about sexual, mental and physical abuse she faced over a span of many years, since she was a child of 9 years, from the petitioner who
was her Mousa, against the petitioner’s wife who assisted the petitioner and against his brother who also sexually abused her.
4. In her statement the prosecutrix stated that her father had deserted her mother when she was young. So she and her mother started living at her
maternal grandparent’s house at Darbangha. Her mother was mentally unsound and not capable of taking care of her. As long as her maternal
grandmother was alive till 28th June, 1994 things were all right, however on her death when the entire family got together the prosecutrix and other
cousins were called by the petitioner to tell them stories after the dinner. In the night when her cousins slept, the petitioner lifted her clothes, removed
her undergarments and fumbled with her private parts. She was too afraid to tell anybody about the incident. Later her aunt i.e. the wife of the
Petitioner came with the proposal that the prosecutrix could live in their house at Muzaffarpur, Bihar which was accepted by everyone. The mother of
the prosecutrix continued to live in her maternal grandparent’s house where as the prosecutrix was taken to Muzaffarpur for further studies.
There the petitioner had easy access and prosecutrix was made to sleep on the first floor with the petitioner who sexually abused her and raped her on
regular basis. As per the prosecutrix even her aunt i.e. the wife of the petitioner allowed and aided him to commit rape on her and she would force the
prosecutrix to sleep with her uncle who was an influential person and had lots of friends in politics, Police, etc. When the prosecutrix was 13 years old,
the younger brother of the petitioner who was also living in the same house also sexually abused and raped her. At the age of 17 prosecutrix realised
that she was pregnant when she was given homeopathic pills for abortion. She came to Delhi for competitive exams where petitioner made frequent
visits and raped her. Thereafter prosecutrix got admission in NIFT at Hyderabad where she was mentally harassed by the petitioner on phone. Finally
in March, 2006 she told her entire family about the exploitation she had suffered, however nobody stood by her and doubted her story. However, her
maternal uncle assured action but they also did not do anything.
5. During the course of investigation the prosecutrix gave CDs of voice recording of conversation between the petitioner and the prosecutrix. The said
CDs were sent to FSL, report whereof has been received stating that the voice belongs to the petitioner and the prosecutrix. A perusal of most of
these conversations reveals that the petitioner is admitting having sexually exploited the prosecutrix including raping her number of times.
6. During the course of trial though the wife and brother of the petitioner were discharged, however on a special leave petition filed the order
discharging the co-accused was set aside and the two other accused i.e. wife and brother of the petitioner are also facing trial.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied upon the testimony of the maternal uncle and aunt of the prosecutrix, who have stated that the
prosecutrix lived with them and studied at Dharbhanga. As noted above the case of the prosecutrix is not of a solitary incident but a continuous course
over the years. Further, case of the prosecutrix herself is that her maternal uncle though stated that he would take action but did not take any. The
petitioner and other family members had a fiduciary obligation to protect the prosecutrix as she was living under their guardianship. The course of
conduct spans over more than a decade so even if she studied at Dharbhanga for few years it is not sufficient to conclude that the prosecutrix never
stayed at Muzzafarpur or is telling lies.
8. Having considered the transcripted conversations between the petitioner and the prosecutrix as also the allegations of the prosecutrix who has been
cross-examined extensively and in her depositions has fortified her allegations, and the fact that petitioner is in a position to exert influence over the
witnesses, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner.
9. Petition is dismissed.
