BAIL APPLN.--1380/2017. Case: SULAIMAN AHMADI THROUGH PAIROKAR POORVI SINGH Vs. STATE. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | BAIL APPLN.--1380/2017 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | September 21, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 01.09.2017
Judgment pronounced on: 21.09.2017 + BAIL APPLN. 1380/2017
SULAIMAN AHMADI THROUGH
PAIROKAR POORVI SINGH .... Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.N. Dudeja, Advocate with
Mr.Anuj Chauhan, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP for
State with W/SI Usha Yadav, PS Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi.
Mr.Shrey Mehta, Advocate for Complainant along with complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J.
-
The petitioner seeks his release on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.PC’) in a case registered against him and Tawab Ahmad @ Saleem vide FIR No.0012/2017 dated 12.01.2017, Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, South District, Delhi, under Sections 376/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) on the complaint of prosecutrix “M”.
Bail Application No. 1380/2017 Page 1 of 14
-
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the report of the FSL, semen found on the undergarment of the prosecutrix does not match with the blood of the petitioner and co-accused. He submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix has not been consistent and does not inspire confidence. He submitted that the prosecutrix had willfully joined the bonfire party where admittedly the petitioner was present.
-
He submitted that the petitioner even did not touch the prosecutrix and the entire story against the petitioner is false and baseless. He submitted that the petitioner was in close company of his fiancée Ms.Poorvi Singh from previous night till 8:30 AM on 12th January, 2017 and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner of raping or even attempting to rape the prosecutrix. He submitted that the allegation of the prosecutrix that on 12th
January, 2017 when she woke up early in the morning she found that the petitioner and co-accused Tawab Ahmad @ Saleem had raped her cannot be believed.
-
He submitted that prosecutrix had refused her internal medical examination and as per MLC no injuries were found on her person. He submitted that the IO has not recorded the statement of eye-witness Ms.Poorvi Singh, who is fiancée of the petitioner, and was present at the spot throughout. He submitted that simply because the petitioner is a foreigner, being a citizen of Afghanistan, and staying in India under proper refugee visa for
Bail Application No. 1380/2017 Page 2 of 14
last 10 years, he cannot be denied bail. He submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12th January, 2017. He submitted that the allegations had been levelled against the petitioner to settle some ulterior motive/object or extortion. He submitted that the petitioner, having accepted the invitation of his friend Sahil, joined his company along with his fiancée Ms.Poorvi Singh at 11:00 PM on 11th January, 2017 at K-36, Second Floor, Green Park, New Delhi. When the petitioner, Ms.Poorvi Singh and Sahil were enjoying the bonfire, the coaccused Tawab Ahmad @ Saleem with two girls including prosecutrix “M” and one Ms.Saraswati Ingle came there in the midnight (i.e. at 12:00 AM). After some time accused Tawab Ahmad @ Saleem along with prosecutrix “M” and Ms.Saraswati Ingle left the place on the request of the prosecutrix but after some time prosecutrix and accused Tawab Ahmad @ Saleem again arrived at about 2:30 AM on 12th January, 2017. He submitted that at about 2:40 AM on 12th January, 2017, the petitioner and his fiancée Ms.Poorvi Singh requested the prosecutrix to leave the place as it was too late but the prosecutrix, while flashing her uncontrolled behavior under the influence of liquor, did not allow them to leave.
-
He submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case just to harass him. He cited a judgment of this court in Sameer v. State of NCT , 2005 (1) JCC 336 , wherein a single
Bail Application No. 1380/2017 Page 3 of 14
Bench of this Court granted bail to the accused under Section 439 Cr.PC as the blood group of the accused did not match with that of the prosecutrix.
-
He had relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court deciding an Appeal in the case of Santosh Kumar v. State , 2010 (9) SCC 747 in which the Apex Court had partly accepted the appeal against the judgment of the High Court and commuted the death sentence into life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. While...
To continue reading
Request your trial