The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to a senior officer in the Indian Navy accused of rape..The Court observed that the investigation indicated that the petitioner Navy officer influenced other officers to manipulate facts and cause destruction of evidence.“The petitioner is a senior officer in Indian Navy, hence was required to show a more responsible behaviour than the prosecutrix. Can he be allowed to play with her dignity on the pretext he cohabited with her just for fun and later claim she is extorting money from him. Such allegations if not backed with proof are rather insulting,” said Justice Yogesh Khanna..The allegation against the petitioner was that he indulged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage.It was alleged that in December 2019, the petitioner and the prosecutrix had dinner at Varuna Mess in Kota House, New Delhi. The petitioner gave the prosecutrix a cold drink mixed with sedatives which she consumed and felt dizzy. Despite her wanting to go home, the petitioner took her to his room and gave her a tablet. After 10-15 minutes, she became unconscious and when she woke up the next morning, she realised she was raped. The couple indulged in sexual activities on subsequent occasions..When the prosecutrix confronted him on fulfilling his promise of marriage, it is alleged that the petitioner said that he partook in the acts “only for fun.” The petitioner also allegedly threatened the prosecutrix that he would publish compromising photographs and video recordings of her on the internet.The prosecutrix finally lodged an FIR on learning that the petitioner was marrying another girl to whom he had been engaged for a long time..The petitioner claimed that the two were simply friends, and she had become obsessed with him. He also alleged that she made repeated demands for him to transfer money to her bank account.However, the Court found this defence to be factually incorrect as the prosecutrix brought before the Court a transcript of a conversation between her, her friend and the mother of the petitioner which showed that the latter was aware of his intention to marry her.In fact, Justice Yogesh Khanna said, “The allegation she is doing all this for money rather inflicts more pain to her injury… No doubt, the victim is an educated lady, but is an educated person immune to cheating. The answer would be no.”.Further, the Court went on to find that the two indeed had a relationship that kindled a hope of marriage in the prosecutrix, and that it was not illogical for her to think so..While noting that the petitioner was influencing other officers to manipulate facts and cause destruction of evidence, the Court observed that though the petitioner alleged that civilians are not allowed in the Kota House, where the crime allegedly occurred, the statement of the guard was recorded to show entries are not made in the visitors’ register if a civilian is accompanied by an officer..In fact, when the police sought details of the accommodation allotted to the petitioner, the authorities replied saying, “no record is held by this unit.”The Court remarked that this shows the office of the petitioner is avoiding the reply under the influence of the petitioner..Considering the facts and the submissions made by both parties, the Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner..Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra and Advocates Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Nitin Saluja, Asmita Narula and Sasha Maria Paul appeared for the petitioner.The State was represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal. Advocates Krishan Kumar and Shivam Bedi appeared for the prosecutrix..[Read Order Here]
The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to a senior officer in the Indian Navy accused of rape..The Court observed that the investigation indicated that the petitioner Navy officer influenced other officers to manipulate facts and cause destruction of evidence.“The petitioner is a senior officer in Indian Navy, hence was required to show a more responsible behaviour than the prosecutrix. Can he be allowed to play with her dignity on the pretext he cohabited with her just for fun and later claim she is extorting money from him. Such allegations if not backed with proof are rather insulting,” said Justice Yogesh Khanna..The allegation against the petitioner was that he indulged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage.It was alleged that in December 2019, the petitioner and the prosecutrix had dinner at Varuna Mess in Kota House, New Delhi. The petitioner gave the prosecutrix a cold drink mixed with sedatives which she consumed and felt dizzy. Despite her wanting to go home, the petitioner took her to his room and gave her a tablet. After 10-15 minutes, she became unconscious and when she woke up the next morning, she realised she was raped. The couple indulged in sexual activities on subsequent occasions..When the prosecutrix confronted him on fulfilling his promise of marriage, it is alleged that the petitioner said that he partook in the acts “only for fun.” The petitioner also allegedly threatened the prosecutrix that he would publish compromising photographs and video recordings of her on the internet.The prosecutrix finally lodged an FIR on learning that the petitioner was marrying another girl to whom he had been engaged for a long time..The petitioner claimed that the two were simply friends, and she had become obsessed with him. He also alleged that she made repeated demands for him to transfer money to her bank account.However, the Court found this defence to be factually incorrect as the prosecutrix brought before the Court a transcript of a conversation between her, her friend and the mother of the petitioner which showed that the latter was aware of his intention to marry her.In fact, Justice Yogesh Khanna said, “The allegation she is doing all this for money rather inflicts more pain to her injury… No doubt, the victim is an educated lady, but is an educated person immune to cheating. The answer would be no.”.Further, the Court went on to find that the two indeed had a relationship that kindled a hope of marriage in the prosecutrix, and that it was not illogical for her to think so..While noting that the petitioner was influencing other officers to manipulate facts and cause destruction of evidence, the Court observed that though the petitioner alleged that civilians are not allowed in the Kota House, where the crime allegedly occurred, the statement of the guard was recorded to show entries are not made in the visitors’ register if a civilian is accompanied by an officer..In fact, when the police sought details of the accommodation allotted to the petitioner, the authorities replied saying, “no record is held by this unit.”The Court remarked that this shows the office of the petitioner is avoiding the reply under the influence of the petitioner..Considering the facts and the submissions made by both parties, the Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner..Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra and Advocates Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Nitin Saluja, Asmita Narula and Sasha Maria Paul appeared for the petitioner.The State was represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal. Advocates Krishan Kumar and Shivam Bedi appeared for the prosecutrix..[Read Order Here]
