Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Bharti vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 January, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.01.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 40/2025 & CRL.M.A. 244/2025 & CRL.M.A.
245/2025
ANIL KUMAR BHARTI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kriti Ranjan , Mr. Kumar
Gaurav and Mr. Tanishq
Sharma, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the
State
Mr. L.S. Chaudhary Mr. Ajay
Chaudhary, Mr. Bharat
Chaudhary, Mr. Vikram Singh,
Mr. Anirudh Sharma and Ms.
Ayushi Gupta, Advocates for
respondent no. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. The instant application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the applicant,
seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 28/2022, dated
05.01.2022, registered at Police Station Mundka, Delhi for offence
punishable under Sections 63/366/368/323/344/376/ 506/120B/34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter „IPC‟) and Section 6/17/21 of the
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 40/2025 Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:20.01.2025
21:32:02
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter
„POCSO Act‟).
2. As per Status Report filed on record, the facts of the case are
that on the complaint of Mr. „N‟, resident of Mundka, Delhi, a case
was registered under Section 363 of IPC at P.S. Mundka, Delhi
wherein he stated that his daughter Ms. „A‟, aged 17 years, was
missing since 31.12.2021 and a boy named Shubham had taken taken
away his daughter by luring her away. During the course of
investigation, efforts were made to trace the victim and accused
Shubham, son of Arjun Prasad Yadav, however, the accused was
absconding. Non-Bailable Warrant against Shubham were obtained by
the Investigation Officer on 17.02.2022. During the course of
investigation, the relatives of the accused Shubham, i.e. his father
Arjun Prasad Yadav, mother Babita Devi, uncle Arun Kumar Suman
and Krishan Kumar Yadav, and Fufa Anil Kumar Bharti were
contacted but they did not join and co-operate in the investigation.
During investigation, age proof of the victim was also obtained from
her school, as per which her date of birth was 25.10.2004. Thereafter,
on 03.03.2022, the maternal uncle of accused Shubham had
telephonically contacted the police, and had asked them to come at
Peeragarhi Chowk, Delhi where the victim was handed over to the
police, who was later brought to P.S. Mundka. Her counselling and
medical examination was conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital,
Mangolpuri, Delhi and her statement was also recorded under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 40/2025 Page 2 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:20.01.2025
21:32:02
3. The statements of relevant witnesses were also recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is stated that thereafter, on 12.03.2022, the
victim gave one additional complaint against accused Shubham and
his relatives, where she had mentioned the sequence of incidents, and
alleged the offence of sexual assault with her. Before the IO, the
victim had disclosed that earlier on 03.03.2022, she could not disclose
the true facts due to fear, and threat by the accused Shubham and his
relatives. On 26.03.2022, another statement of the victim was recorded
before the learned Magistrate, where new facts were disclosed by the
victim. Thereafter, relevant Sections 366/376/323/344/506/120B/34 of
IPC, and Sections 6/17/21 of POCSO Act were added in the present
case. Thereafter, the victim produced three photographs of accused
Shubham, his father Arjun Prasad Yadav, and his uncle Arun Kumar
Suman and aunt Rekha Rani, and the same were seized, and taken into
possession by the police.
4. Thereafter, search was made for the accused persons, including
in the State of Bihar. On 14.04.2022, the uncle of accused Shubham
namely Arun Kumar Suman was arrested. On 19.04.2022, the accused
Shubham was arrested in the present case. It is stated that the accused
persons namely Rekha Rani, Arjun Prasad Yadav, and Anil Kumar
Bharti were absconding since the day of registration, and accordingly,
NBWs were also obtained against them. Eventually, proceedings
under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the said accused
persons. The anticipatory bails preferred by them were dismissed by
the learned Sessions Court on 27.05.2022.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 40/2025 Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:20.01.2025
21:32:02
5. On 08.06.2022, after completion of investigation, the charge-
sheet was filed against the accused persons, i.e. Shubham Kumar,
Arun Kumar Suman, Rekha Rani, Arjun Prasad Yadav, and Anil
Kumar Bharti. On 20.07.2022, Rekha Rani, Arjun Prasad Yadav and
Anil Kumar Bharti, were declared Proclaimed Offenders by the
learned Sessions Court, and Section 174A of IPC was added in the
present case. Thereafter, Rekha Rani had filed an application for
anticipatory bail before this Court, and interim protection was granted
to her petitioner. On 28.07.2022, she had joined investigation of the
case. Thereafter, Arjun Prasad Yadav, and Anil Kumar Bharti were
also granted interim protection from arrest by this Court. The said
accused persons joined investigation on 31.10.2022 and 17.11.2022
respectively. Supplementary charge-sheet in the case was filed on
28.01.2023.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the present accused/applicant
argued that the victim in this case, though was about 17 years of age at
the time of incident, had out of her own free will, eloped with the
accused Shubham, and the applicant is the uncle (fufa) of Shubham. It
is stated that there are no specific allegations against the present
accused. It is submitted that co-accused Shubham has already been
regular granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is also
contended that the applicant is a peace loving government servant, and
is a teacher in a school with clean antecedents and since charge-sheet
already stands filed against him without arrest, there is no ground to
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 40/2025 Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:20.01.2025
21:32:02
now deny bail to him. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be
granted bail.
7. The learned counsel for the victim, assisting the learned APP
for the State, argues that the victim was only 17 years of age at the
time of the incident, and therefore, since the present applicant was
instrumental in the commission of offence in question, and also
considering the conduct of the applicant, the present bail application
ought to be dismissed.
8. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both
the parties, and has perused the material placed on record.
9. Having gone through the case file, this Court is of the opinion
that the main accused in this case is co-accused Shubham, who has
already been granted regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 12.09.2024 in BAIL APPLN. 3137/2024.The
relevant observations of the Coordinate Bench are extracted
hereunder:
“9. Material on record discloses that when the victim left the house,
she was 17 years and 02 months which is about 10 months short of
her attaining the age of majority. This Court is coming across a
number of cases where girls who are more than about 17 years of
age elope with boys of their choice and when they are caught, the
parents of the victim force the victim to change the statement of the
victim before the police. The police also records such statements at
a later stage which is completely contrary to the earlier statements.
Majority of the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C also
do not conform with the victim‟s earlier statements given by the
victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C which is contradictory. The
present case is a classic example where the victim in the first
instance had come out with a story that she had gone to her
friend’s house after informing her mother where she had called
the Petitioner for meeting and, thereafter, they went to Madhya
Pradesh with the Petitioner and after that Bihar and when theySignature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 40/2025 Page 5 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:20.01.2025
21:32:02
came to know that the father of the victim has filed a case, they
came to Delhi. There is a material improvement in her second
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C which was
recorded after 23 days after her first statement stating that
though she went to Madhya Pradesh with the Petitioner on her
own accord but she was kept confined in Bihar and was forced
to marry the Petitioner.”
(Emphasis added)
10. It is not in dispute that in the initial statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C, the victim had stated that she had developed
friendship with the accused Shubham and she had gone to meet him at
Metro Walk. In the evening, when her parents had started making calls
to her, she, out of fear, had not responded to the same, and thereafter,
the accused Shubham had taken her to Madhya Pradesh, where she
had lived with the accused in a rented room for about 15 days, and
thereafter, they had gone to Hajipur and Patna. Later, one uncle had
informed the police about their whereabouts. However, it was in the
later complaint made on 12.03.2022 and the second statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 26.03.2022, that she levelled
certain allegations against the relatives of the accused Shubham,
including the present applicant, of restraining and confining her in a
house, and getting her married to the accused Shubham on the basis of
forged and fabricated documents.
11. Clearly, the victim in her first statement recorded under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate on 03.03.2022, did not
support the prosecution‟s case. However, after about 23 days of
recording of her initial statement, the victim had changed her version
in the second statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 40/2025 Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:20.01.2025
21:32:02
26.03.2022, and had levelled some allegations against the accused,
after improving upon her previous statement.
12. The chargesheet in this case stands filed against the present
accused persons without arrest. The applicant herein has clean
antecedents and no allegation of threat to the victim or otherwise has
been reported or argued before this Court. This Court finds no ground
to reject the prayer for grant of bail and therefore, inclined to grant
regular bail to the applicant on his furnishing personal bond in the sum
of Rs.10,000/- with surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court/Successor Court/Link Court/Duty Judge concerned on the
following terms and conditions:
i) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the concerned Trial Court.
ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make an attempt
to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any
manner.
iii) In case of change of residential address/contact details, the
applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned
Court and the concerned I.O.
iv) The applicant shall attend the proceedings before the learned
Trial Court regularly.
13. Accordingly, the present bail application stands disposed of.
14. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 17, 2025/ns
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 40/2025 Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:20.01.2025
21:32:02