Bail Matters 3791 of 2021

FIR No. 539/2021

U/s 376/506/509 IPC
PS Jamia Nagar
Mohd Saif Ahmed vs. State

22.12.2021

Present Application is being taken up in terms of order No. 79 dated

27.11.2021 passed by Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, SED, Saket Courts
(Roster).

Present: Sh. A.T. Ansari, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the state.
Sh. Karnail Singh, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
Sh. Shoaib Akhtar, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
IO/WSI Nidhi in person.

Fresh application for grant of regular bail received. It be checked and

registered.
Reply filed by IO. Copy supplied.
Brief facts, as per prosecution version, may be taken note of:- The
prosecutrix and applicant/accused were known to each other since 2019. As per
prosecutrix, on 14.11.2021, the applicant/accused was drinking and started misbehaving
with her by inappropriately touching her. On next morning, applicant/accused felt sorry
for his behaviour and promised not to repeat the said behaviour.
Thereafter, on 08.12.2021, it is alleged that applicant/accused again
misbehaved with the prosecutrix. As per prosecutrix, on 10.12.2021, the
applicant/accused made prosecutrix to drink (liquor) forcibly and made forcible sexual
relationship with her. The allegations of applicant/accused abusing the prosecutrix and
threatening her have also been made. During course of investigation, applicant/accused
was arrested on 14.12.2021 and since then he is in custody.
It is submitted by Ld. defence counsel that applicant/accused has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the allegations made in the
complaint are false, frivolous and concocted which is evident from the fact that if the
applicant had misbehaved with complainant in November, there should not have been
any occasion or reason for the complainant to meet the applicant again and again.
 -2- FIR No. 539/21, Mohd. Saif Ahmed vs. State, PS Jamia Nagar

It is further argued that applicant/accused 27 years old boy having clean antecedents
and the sexual relationship between parties was completely consensual. It is argued that
applicant/accused is in custody since 14.12.2021 and is no more required for
investigation. On these grounds, it is prayed that applicant/accused may be granted
regular bail.
Per contra, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the state as well as Ld. Counsel
for complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that
allegations against accused are grave and serious and specific allegations of rape have
been made against the applicant/accused.
I have heard rival contentions and perused the record.
On specific query, it is informed by IO that during examination of
mobile phone of applicant/accused, latter and prosecutrix were seen consuming liquor,
however it does not appear to be a forceful exercise (of drinking) on the part of
applicant/accused, though the exact date of same is yet to be verified.
Admittedly, the applicant/accused had misbehaved with the prosecutrix
on two occasions prior to the alleged incident, however despite the same, she chose to
accompany the applicant/accused. Therefore, seen in the light of aforesaid background,
the contention of defence regarding false implication, cannot be brushed aside lightly.
Rival contentions shall however be adjudged during course of investigation. The
applicant/accused is in custody since 14.12.2021 and is no more required for
investigation.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, accused
Mohd. Saif Ahmed is admitted to bail on furnishing of personal bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of concerned
MM/Duty MM.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Dasti to all concerned.

(ANUJ AGRAWAL)
Duty ASJ-05, South-East District
Saket Courts, New Delhi:22.12.2021