Anadi Tewari
The Delhi High Court on Monday (May 10) while allowing a bail application of a man accused of rape and making obscene video has observed that “at the age of 23 years, a girl/lady is good enough to decide what is right or wrong.”
“The FIR in question has been registered in the year 2019 and the age of prosecutrix has been mentioned as 26 years. A cursory perusal of FIR shows that prosecutrix had visited Mohali in the year 2016 and instead of attending her coaching classes, she used to roam around with petitioner in malls, PVR and showrooms etc. However, she has pleaded ignorance about how the petitioner made her obscene video and allegedly blackmailed her to forcefully make physical relations with him. Three years prior to the year 2019, prosecutrix might have been 23 years of age and in the opinion of this Court, at the age of 23 years, a girl/lady is good enough to decide what is right or wrong,” the single-judge bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait further went on to observe.
Background of the case
The petitioner has approached the High Court seeking bail in a case registered under Section 376, 506, 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
On 23rd January 2019, the prosecutrix, aged 26 years, lodged an FIR that in the year 2016 when she had gone to visit her Aunt, the petitioner who happens to be her first cousin, forced her to join coaching classes there for bank exams. Accordingly, she joined the classes thinking that it would help her in future.
She at the insistence of the petitioner, missed those classes and was with the petitioner and during this time and petitioner recorded her obscene video and started blackmailing her to have physical relations with her else he would make that obscene video public.
She alleges that the petitioner in February 2018 took her somewhere and showed her the said obscene video and raped her and promised her that he would delete the said video but hadn’t deleted the same and later the prosecutrix filed an FIR against him after he sent her the video on Facebook.
Arguments Raised
The Petitioner’s counsel submitted before the Court that:
(i) Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as the alleged incident took place in February 2018 whereas the FIR was registered in January 2019 and no plausible reason is forthcoming for the delay.
(ii) No Police Control Room (PCR) call was made by the prosecutrix in Mohali against the petitioner. No material has been brought on record to substantiate the allegations.
The Counsel for the respondent submitted that:
(i) The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. The prosecutrix has alleged that the petitioner raped her on several occasions against her wish and had also prepared her obscene video and whenever she refused to get physical with him, he threatened her saying that he will make the said video public.
(ii) The petitioner’s threat to the prosecutrix had gone to the extent of firing a gunshot on the leg of the prosecutrix and in this regard, two FIRs are also being registered.
(iii) The Petitioner avoided the judicial process of law and was declared proclaimed offender by the trial court.
Observation of the Court
The Court observed that even though the allegations are serious in nature, there were no PCR calls neither any FIR was registered of this incident and nor the prosecutrix told regarding this incident to her mother or aunt.
The Court has also perused the FSL report which showed that inappropriate videos and chats have been retrieved from the mobile of the prosecutrix, but nothing incriminating has been recovered from the mobile of the petitioner.
The Court also noted that the prosecutrix had refused to undergo an internal medical examination.
While going to the 2 FIRs registered against the petitioner, the Court observes that these are independent of the present case since nowhere the name or identity of the petitioner is highlighted and the prosecutrix is yet to establish the relation.
In light of the above observations, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-.
Case: Mohit Aggarwal v. The State and Another [Bail Application 1214/2021]