Rajeev Sharma v. State (NCT) Of Delhi

$~11 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 2091/2017 RAJEEV SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. B.S. Chowdhary, Adv.

Versus

STATE (NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with W/SI Sushma, P.S. Moti Nagar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 20.11.2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mobile phone of the petitioner has already been seized. Petitioner is in custody for more than one month. There is delay in registering the FIR. Prosecutrix has alleged in the FIR that petitioner raped her in the month of January, 2017 thereafter, on several occasions and lastly on 18th April, 2017. Prosecutrix is a married woman with one child. Prosecutrix also lodged an FIR No. 43/2017 under Sections 448/354A/354B/323/34 IPC against the son of her landlord. She alleged that Sonu had torn her clothes and touched her breast. In the said

FIR, she has stated that petitioner had come to her rescue at that time and was beaten by Sonu. She lodged another FIR No. 161/2017 under Sections 354/354A/354B/323/506/34 IPC on 10th May, 2017 against her husband and his friends. It is further submitted that petitioner is a doctor by profession. Prosecutrix used to come to his clinic for treatment. Prosecutrix is in the habit of extorting money from different persons by threatening them to involve them in criminal cases.

She also blackmailed the petitioner and when he declined to pay money to her, she has falsely implicated him. Learned APP has opposed the grant of bail to petitioner. It is submitted that prosecutrix has specifically alleged in the FIR that petitioner had raped her, firstly, January, 2017 and thereafter on quite a few occasions and lastly on 18th April, 2017. Prosecutrix has also stated that she did file the complaint earlier, since petitioner had threatened her that in case she will make any complaint against him, he would make the video, which he had made with her, public.

Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

NOVEMBER 20, 2017 r.bararia