The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to a man accused of raping his wife and also forcing her to have physical relationships with his friends. (Case: Nikhil Jain Vs State)
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait was of the opinion that the contents of the status report and chargesheet prima facie do not appear to support the case of the complainant. However, the parties shall establish their cases during trial, the judge said.
The wife of the accused filed a complaint against him and her in-laws, accusing them of forcing her into illicit physical relationships with other men. The FIR was lodged against the man under section 376/376-D/323/506/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at police station Farsh Bazar, Delhi.
The following are the averments in the charge sheet: “376. Punishment for rape. 376D. Gang rape. 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. 109. Punishment for abetment, if the act abetted is committed in consequence and when no express provision is made for its punishment. 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.”
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and complainant was solemnized on June 11, 2015 and since the complainant/wife is a quarrelsome lady, matrimonial differences arose between them. The counsel further submitted that there is no medical or scientific evidence/material available on record to connect petitioner with the alleged offence.
The counsel further submitted that since the petitioner is married to respondent No.2, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out and also, sections 1668/2021 323/ 506/ 109/34 IPC are bailable offences. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the state opposed the petition, submitting that the chargesheet in this case has been filed and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report regarding the mobile and laptop of petitioner is awaited. It was further submitted that the statement of the complainant in this case is yet to be recorded and if the petitioner is released on bail, there is strong possibility of his threatening the complainant.
Read Also: Delhi HC throws out Juhi Chawla’s plea against 5G, imposes Rs 20 lakh cost
The court noted: “A cursory look upon copy of chargesheet placed on record reveals that prior to filing of impugned complaint on 21.07.2020, complainant had also filed a complaint on 03.07.2020 at police station Farsh Bazar, Delhi regarding family dispute between her and her husband and mother-in-law but no allegation of rape has been levelled in the said complaint. It is also recorded in the charge-sheet that complainant along with petitioner and their son in the month of April, 2020 had quarantined themselves in Metropolis Society due to Covid pandemic and the official register of enter /exit in the Society, has no entry for the persons namely Praveen Jain, Deepak Jain and Krishan Raghav.”
The Court enlarged the petitioner on bail without commenting on the merits of the case, and directed to release the petitioner on bail upon his furnishing personal bond of Rs 20,000 with one surety in the like amount. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since July 23, 2020. The court made it clear that any observation made herein shall not influence the prosecution case during trial.