Delhi HC grants anticipatory bail to rape accused claiming honey trap; Seeks report from CP on existence of similar cases

Stating that allurement advanced for extortion of money was not acceptable, the Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a person who claimed that the rape FIR against him was the result of a trap woven by a racket of extortionists. (Kapil Gupta vs State).The order was passed by a single Judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait. .Following the registration of an FIR under Sections 376 IPC, the Petitioner was seeking grant of bail under Section 438 CrPC. .As per the case of the Prosecutrix, the Petitioner raped her when he had come to her place to discuss a job opportunity for the post of his personal assistant. .She claimed that the Petitioner served her alcoholic drinks and raped her and the incident was corroborated by her neighbour, Jasmin who saw him run away. .The Prosecution opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the presence of the Petitioner at the spot was not in dispute. It was also asserted that the Petitioner had no business going to the house of a woman who was a stranger to him. .The Petitioner conceded that he and the Prosecutrix were complete strangers till the date of the incident and proceeded to share his version of the incident. .He explained that he was looking for a personal assistant and the Prosecutrix messaged him in the afternoon of the day of the incident after procuring his number from an online job portal. .Within three minutes of the chat, the Petitioner claimed that the Prosecutrix, instead of sending pictures in professional suits/attire, sent him sensuous pictures of herself..On the same day, the Prosecutrix invited the Petitioner to her house and asked him to bring wine. .As per the Petitioner, the Prosecutrix hinted that she was available for a long term relationship and didn't mind physical initmacy..When the Prosecutrix's demand of Rs five lakh was refused by the Petitioner, she registered an entirely fabricated, false and concocted case of rape against him..The counsel for the Petitioner contended that his client was trapped and tricked under a well-designed, meticulously planned and thoroughly woven racket of extortionists..It was argued that the Prosecutrix deliberately sent her ravishing pictures so that the Petitioner might open up and could be put to right use in the trap which lay ahead. .It was also pointed out that the name of the Prosecutrix's neighbour was not Jasmin and was, in fact, one Bhawna Thakur who was a close friend/ accomplice in the crime..Without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court opined that the Petitioner deserved protection from arrest in the present case..Though acceptance allurement is not justified but at the same time, allurement advanced for extortion of money is also not acceptable.Delhi High Court said. .Considering the allegation, the Court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to "personally look into the matter" and see if the prosecutrix and her neighbour were involved in other similar cases. .The Court asked the Commissioner to call for reports from all the police stations on the existence of other such cases and file a report within four weeks from today..If the Commissioner feels similar type of incident had happened in Delhi in the year 2020, he shall issue standing orders to all the concerned Police Stations that action may be taken as per law, however, without harassing such person/alleged accused therein.the Court further ordered. .The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa with Advocates Simran Jyot Singh Khandpur, Varun Singh, Kamlesh Anand, Sumer Boparai, Ruchika Wadhawn, Raavi Sharma. .APP PL Sharma appeared for State. .Read the Order: