In BAIL APPLN. 4313/2023-DEL HC- Delhi HC declines bail petition of man who sexually assaulted complainant under threat of making her inappropriate photographs public
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [22-12-2023]

Read Order: RITURAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, December 29, 2023: In a case were the complainant made specific allegations of forced sexual assault of aggravated nature¸ the Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to the accused after noting that the accused allegedly possessed complainant’s inappropriate photographs as well as videos and non-bailable warrants had already been issued against him.

The bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) had been filed by the applicant, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in relation to FIR registered under Sections 376(2)(n)/354(B)/323/ 342/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The FIR in question was registered on the complaint of the complainant, who had stated that in February 2020, she had participated in a debate competition in college 'X' where she had met the accused Rituraj, who was pursuing his degree at College 'Y'. It was alleged that he had sent several messages to the victim on her Instagram account, after which accused and complainant started communicating through Whatsapp and Instagram and became friends.

The complainant had accepted the accused’s invitation for dinner. After dinner, the accused had asked the complainant to stay back with him. She had accepted the offer as both of them were good friends. Thereafter, late in the night, the accused entered the room of the complainant and tried to get intimate with her. As alleged, the accused had started kissing her body parts without her consent, and forcibly established physical relations with her. The complainant had also alleged that the accused had recorded inappropriate videos and photographs of the complainant, and had threatened her that he would publish them on social media platforms in case, the complainant disclosed anything to anyone.

After this incident, the complainant suffered mental health issues due to this trauma and even developed suicidal tendency. Thereafter, the accused tried to contact the complainant while insisting that he would delete the photographs and videos of the complainant if she would visit him in his house. However, instead, the accused visited her home and again forcibly established physical relations with her without her consent. On the pretext of deleting the photographs the accused kept on forcefully establishing physical relations with her. It was also alleged by the complainant that these events had led to the deterioration of her mental health, due to which she had also consulted doctors at AIIMS, Delhi between October 2022 and January 2023.

The Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the Instagram posts reflected that the victim/ complainant had written about the incident which had taken place with her.

“The appropriateness of the Instagram posts and her conduct cannot be gone into by this Court, rather it will be inappropriate for this Court to comment on the same, at this stage. The contention of learned counsel for the accused/applicant that the relationship between the complainant and the accused was consensual is not ascertainable from any Instagram post on which he relies upon”, the Bench held.

Thereafter, the Bench perused the medical records, shown by the investigating officer, relating to treatment for depression undergone by the complainant as well as the statement of the complainant recorded, for the purpose of dealing with present bail application.

“While considering the same, this Court notes that there are specific allegations of forced sexual assault of aggravated nature. The accused has not joined the investigation, and as per order of the learned Trial Court, despite sufficient efforts and attempts made by the Investigating Officer, the accused is not traceable”, the Bench said.

Noting that there were also specific allegations regarding the accused being in possession of inappropriate photographs and videos pertaining to the complainant which needed to be recovered, the Bench also considered the fact that non-bailable warrants had already been issued against the accused.

Thus, in view of such facts and circumstances, the Bench refused to exercise its jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail to the present accused/applicant.