Girish Kumar vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi

Facts

The petitioner, Girish Kumar, sought regular bail in FIR No. 730/2024, registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner raped her on January 2, 2020, after incapacitating her with a drugged cake. She further alleged that the petitioner blackmailed her with nude photographs and videos, continuing to exploit her physically. The prosecutrix claimed to have discovered the petitioner's marital status only on April 15, 2023. She also alleged that on September 1, 2024, the petitioner administered tablets causing her to lose her fetus. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming false implication and an arm-twisting tactic. He highlighted a delay in FIR registration and presented a GST certificate of the prosecutrix showing an address where the petitioner resides, suggesting a prior relationship. The Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) was unable to confirm the presence of a fetus.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. Regarding the delay in FIR registration, the Court found it difficult to comprehend why the prosecutrix would take premises on rent and apply for a GST certificate from the petitioner's address after the alleged incident of January 2, 2020, if she only became aware of his marital status on April 15, 2023. This raised doubts about the prosecutrix's timeline and the credibility of her allegations concerning the discovery of the petitioner's marital status. Furthermore, the Court noted that the MLC was unable to confirm the presence of a fetus, which weakened a significant part of the prosecutrix's case. The Court emphasized that the petitioner is presumed innocent until trial, charges are yet to be framed, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. It also noted the absence of any other criminal cases against the petitioner. The Court held that the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution are paramount and, considering the aforementioned factors, inclined to grant bail. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond and surety, surrender his passport, keep his mobile number operational, inform the IO of any address changes, and not communicate with prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR, registered on November 9, 2024, despite the alleged incident of rape occurring on January 2, 2020, and the prosecutrix becoming aware of the petitioner's marital status on April 15, 2023, warrants the grant of bail to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of bail and delay in prosecution). 2. Whether the prosecutrix's procurement of a GST certificate from an address where the petitioner resides, effective from September 14, 2020, casts doubt on her claim of discovering the petitioner's marital status much later in April 2023, and consequently impacts the credibility of her allegations for the purpose of bail? (Question of fact, turning on the interpretation of evidence). 3. Whether the inability of the MLC to confirm the presence of a fetus, as alleged by the prosecutrix, is a significant factor in considering the grant of bail? (Question of fact, turning on medical evidence). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and the FIR was an arm-twisting tactic. He contended that the allegations of blackmail were untrue and highlighted the inordinate delay of over 1 year and 5 months in registering the FIR after the prosecutrix allegedly learned of his marital status. He also pointed to the GST certificate as evidence suggesting a prior relationship and casting doubt on the timeline of discovery of his marital status. He further noted the MLC's inability to confirm the fetus. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (State) argued that the petitioner committed rape without consent and caused the prosecutrix to lose her fetus by administering tablets. They also contended that the investigation was not conducted properly.