TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Anticipatory Bail Denied: Court Considers Seriousness of Allegations and Victim Safety Concerns in Rape, Blackmail Case.</h1> <h3>Bikramjit Singh Versus State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)</h3> The HC dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by the petitioner, accused of rape and blackmail under FIR No. 463/2019 ... Bail application filed under section 438 Cr.P.C - rape - sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent - blackmailing - HELD THAT:- The authenticity of the CDR can only be judged at the appropriate stage. It is settled law that at this stage of bail, the court cannot minutely examine and analyze the prosecution evidence or defence of the accused as no mini trial can be conducted while deciding the bail application. Keeping in view the facts appearing on record and the allegations leveled against the petitioner which are grave in nature and further keeping in view the fact that petitioner has not only videographed the alleged incident of sexual intercourse but also threatened the victim, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out at this stage. The anticipatory bail application is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly. Issues: Bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C in a case involving serious allegations of rape and blackmailing.Analysis:The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi pertains to a bail application filed by the petitioner under section 438 Cr.P.C in a case registered under FIR No. 463/2019 u/s. 376/506 IPC at PS Shalimar Bagh. The petitioner, through his counsel, contended that he was innocent and falsely implicated, presenting evidence that he was not residing at the alleged location during the period of the incident. The petitioner, a disabled person with health issues, cooperated with the investigation, providing his cell phone for examination. The prosecution opposed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations of sexual intercourse without consent. The court considered the submissions and the nature of the case, which involved allegations of rape and blackmailing against the petitioner.The complainant alleged that she was raped and blackmailed by the petitioner over a period of more than a year, with the last incident occurring on 19.08.2019. The complaint stated that the petitioner had threatened her and filmed the act, using it to coerce her into silence. The victim's statement under section 164/Cr.P.C supported her initial complaint. The defense argued that the petitioner's CDR proved his absence from the location during the alleged period, including the date of the last incident. However, the court noted that the authenticity of the CDR could only be determined at a later stage and emphasized that bail proceedings are not meant for detailed scrutiny of evidence.Considering the gravity of the allegations, including the filming of the incident and threats made to the victim, the court found no grounds for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application based on the seriousness of the charges and the potential threat posed by the petitioner's actions towards the victim. The judgment highlights the importance of assessing the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented in bail applications, especially in cases involving offenses as severe as rape and blackmailing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
