The Delhi High Court on Tuesday denied anticipatory bail to an Indian Air Force Officer in a rape case after observing that the possibility of him repeating the offence or influencing the witnesses by misusing his position cannot be ruled out in the matter.
"The prosecutrix has stated in the FIR that the petitioner has abused other women also and this aspect has to be investigated by the authorities. The possibility of the petitioner repeating the offence and/or exerting pressure on the prosecutrix or influencing the witnesses by misusing his position as an Officer of the India Air Force cannot be ruled out at this juncture," Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Bail was sought in the FIR registered under sec. 376, 506, 509 of IPC by a woman alleging that the man, claiming to be unmarried, was in contact with her through a website namely www.Simplymarry.com since March, 2017.
It was further alleged that the petitioner accused had molested her in the year 2017 by taking the prosecutrix to his house. It was the case of the woman that after coming to know that the petitioner was married having two children, she stopped talking to him after which he used to call her from different numbers.
The woman had also alleged that the petitioner had taken a loan amount of Rs. 2,60,000 from her. According to the woman, it was also alleged that the Petitioner harassed and abused her till 2018.
The petitioner's anticipatory bail was rejected by a Sessions Court in October last year after which he had approached the High Court.
While the petitioner submitted that he had not misused or abused the protection granted to him earlier, the Prosecution had submitted that he had opened an account in the matrimonial site in the year 2017 despite being married, thereby opposing the plea.
"A perusal of the FIR indicates that the petitioner was married and yet he became a part of the matrimonial site and that too using a different name which shows that there was no intention of the petitioner to marry the prosecutrix right from the inception. Investigation is necessary to find out whether he has lured other women also," the Court said.
"It is well settled that the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C is an extraordinary power which should be exercised very sparingly. The petitioner is accused of a serious offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The investigation is still going on and has not completed. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner," the Court said while denying anticipatory bail to him.
Title: SATINDER KUMAR v. STATE