Delhi High CourtSachindra Priyadarshi vs State on 18 March, 2020$~2\n\n*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                      Date of Decision: 18.03.2020\n+        BAIL APPLN. 201/2020\n         SACHINDRA PRIYADARSHI                ..... Petitioner\n                           Through:    Mr. Gopal Jha and Mr.\n                                       Shreyash Bhardwaj,\n                                       Advocates.\n                           versus\n         STATE (NCT ) OF DELHI                ..... Respondent\n                           Through:    Mr. G.M.Farooqui, Ld. APP\n                                       for the State.\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI\n                              JUDGMENTBRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)1.       Vide this order, I shall dispose of a bail application filed\n\nundersection 439Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioner Sachindra\n\nPriyadarshi in FIR No. 387/2019 u/s. 328/376/323/506IPC, PS\n\nMandawali Fazalpur.2.       Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the\n\nground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated.\n\nPetitioner is in custody since 21.12.2019. There is no absolutely noBail Appl no. 201/2020                                           Page 1 of 4material available to connect the petitioner with the commission of\n\noffence. It is submitted petitioner has been falsely implicated by the\n\nprosecutrix as petitioner's marriage has been fixed and finalized by\n\nhis parents which annoyed the prosecutrix and this fact is evident\n\nfrom the chat and conversation between the petitioner and\n\nprosecutrix. It is further submitted that there was no physical\n\nrelationship between the prosectrix and petitioner and no promise\n\nfor marriage was ever made by the petitioner. Exchange of messages\n\nbetween the victim and petitioner does not suggest that victim was\n\nunder threat. Police has completed the investigation and custodial\n\ninterrogation of the petitioner is not required. It is, therefore, prayed\n\nthat petitioner be released on bail in the interest of justice.3.       Ld. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, in support of its\n\nsubmissions, has relied upon the following case law:-a.Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra &\n            Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608;b.Rohit Chauhan v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 SCC\n            Online Del 2016.4.       I have gone through the above case law. It is a settled law\n\nthat each bail application is to be decided on the basis of itsBail Appl no. 201/2020                                            Page 2 of 4peculiar facts and circumstances. No straitjacket formula can be\n\nlaid own for dispose of the bail application. So far as the cases\n\ncited by Ld. Counsel are concerned, these are distinguishable on\n\nthe basis of the facts and circumstances stated therein.5.       Ld. APP for the State has opposed both the bail application\n\non the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious\n\nin nature. Petitioner has not only made physical relation with the\n\nprosecutrix but also took her objectionable photo and video. Ld.\n\nAPP, has therefore, prayed for dismissal of bail application.6.       I have considered the rival submissions. As per prosecution\n\nversion, on 29.11.2019 a complaint was made by prosecutrix in\n\nwhich she has alleged on 22.09.2018, petitioner called her at his\n\nhouse and when she reached there, petitioner offered a glass of cold\n\ndrink and after consuming the same, she became unconscious.\n\nWhen she gained consciousness, there was no clothe on her body\n\nand petitioner told her that he had made sexual relationship with\n\nher as he liked her too much and could not control himself.\n\nPetitioner also threatened her that if she disclosed this thing to\n\nanybody, he will upload her naked photos and videos on socialBail Appl no. 201/2020                                          Page 3 of 4media. Under threat the petitioner made physical relation with her\n\nseveral time. Statement of prosecutrix underSection 164Cr.P.C.\n\nwas recorded in which she had corroborated all the facts made in\n\nher complaint.           During investigation, two mobile phone of the\n\npetitioner were seized to substantiate the allegations of taking\n\nobscene photos and videos of the victim. All the seized exhibits\n\nhave been sent to FSL for expert opinion and the result of the same\n\nis still awaited.7.       The above allegations appearing against the petitioner are\n\nserious in nature. Petitioner has made physical relations with the\n\nprosecutrix many times on the threat of uploading her nude photos\n\nand video on social media. Petitioner has also made false promise\n\nof marriage. Prosecutrix got pregnant twice but petitioner got the\n\npregnancy aborted without consulting any Doctor. Keeping in mind\n\nthe nature and gravity of offence, no grounds for bail are made out\n\nat this stage. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed and stands\n\ndisposed of accordingly.BRIJESH SETHI, J\n\nMARCH 18, 2020\nAKBail Appl no. 201/2020                                         Page 4 of 4