Reeta Through Parokar v. The State NCT Of Delhi

$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2185/2020 REETA THROUGH PAROKAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr K Zulfiqar Khan, Advocate Mr Deepak Kr. Mishra, Advocate.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr Ravi Nayak, APP for State with SI Dharmendra PS Vaant Kunj North.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 16.09.2020 [Hearing held through video conferencing] 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the petitioner be released on bail in FIR No. 0336/2016 under Section 341/363/370-C/376/376-D/506/34 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) registered with PS Vasant Kunj. It is stated that a subsequent charge sheet under Section 4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 was also filed. 2.

The FIR in question was registered at the instance of one Ms Bandana Rai, who is stated to be an office bearer of an NGO. She stated that she had

received a secret information regarding kidnapping of a minor girl from North East, India who was confined at Mahipalpur, Delhi. 3.

The petitioner and her husband reside in an apartment in Mahipalpur, Delhi. A raid was conducted and the victim was found in the said residence. The victim stated that she had studied up to 10th standard at Darjeeling and her financial condition was poor. She had met her friend's sister-in-law (petitioner in this case) and her husband in her village. She alleged that they had invited her to come to Delhi and work for them and she had accompanied them from Darjeeling to Delhi. She alleged that they had forcibly confined her in the apartment and compelled her to have physical relationships with various persons. It is alleged that the petitioner and her husband used to call 4-5 persons at their residence regularly and they used to do wrong acts with her.

4.

Statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.PC was recorded. She has supported the allegations levelled against the petitioner. 5.

Mr Ravi Nayak, learned APP appearing for the State submits that the victim has not been examined and there would be a serious risk that the petitioner may influence the victim if she is released at this stage. 6.

Considering that the petitioner also hails in West Bengal, this Court is of the view that granting bail to the petitioner at this stage would involve a risk of her influencing the victim and other witnesses. 7.

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. 8.

The petitioner is at liberty to apply afresh after the victim has been

examined. The Trial Court is directed to ensure that the victim is examined at the earliest possible opportunity and in precedence to other witnesses. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 pkv