In Bail Appln. 1247/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court dismisses bail plea of man accused of rape & abetting suicide of 19-year-old girl
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela [19-09-2023]

Read Order: Karan Chandela V. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 20, 2023: The Delhi High Court has rejected the bail application of a man accused of raping and abetting the suicide of a 19-year-old girl. The Court cited the accused's criminal antecedents as reasons for denying bail.

As per the prosecution, on 19.09.2019, the police had received a PCR call, reporting the incident of a 19-year-old girl who had hanged herself. She was declared 'brought dead' at Vashisth Hospital. The complainant, who was the deceased girl's mother, informed the police that a friend, identified as 'S,' had disclosed that the deceased, 'M,' was extremely distressed. 'S' revealed that a boy named Karan Chandela (the applicant) had been blackmailing and threatening 'M’, sharing explicit videos and photos of her on social media. It was further alleged that 'S' informed the complainant that the applicant had reportedly raped 'M' multiple times. On the fateful day of 19.09.2019, 'M' had gone to meet the applicant at a hotel, and upon returning, she took her own life. Initially, the FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC, but the offense under Section 376 IPC was subsequently added following initial investigations by the prosecuting agency.

The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant and the deceased were in a consensual relationship for two years before the incident occurred. It was submitted that there was a complete absence of evidence, whether oral, documentary, or scientific, which could even prima facie show any of the ingredients of Section 376 IPC having been committed by the applicant upon the deceased.

The single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that there was a reason to believe that the star witness, PW- Ms. S, turning hostile and retracting her statement by providing a letter to the police station shortly after the applicant was granted interim protection from arrest, was not merely coincidental. Furthermore, it was brought to light that the father and uncle of the applicant allegedly assaulted and harassed the deceased's mother, the complainant, on 18.11.2019, which happened to be the same day the applicant was released on interim bail.

The bench also took note of the fact that the applicant had previously been involved in two FIRs registered under Sections 323/341/427/452/506/34 IPC. Additionally, it was brought to the court's attention that these two FIRs were subsequently quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same court based on a settlement reached between the applicant, other co-accused individuals, and the complainant in those cases. The bench observed that the resolution of those cases was based on a settlement and did not necessarily indicate that the applicant was found innocent. Given these circumstances, the bench concluded that these cases did not instil confidence in the court to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.

The bench also noted that the applicant had been subjected to jail punishments on three separate occasions during his period of incarceration, and his overall jail conduct had been recorded as ‘Unsatisfactory’.

Thus, the bench held that although all the primary/public witnesses in the present case had been examined, cross-examined, and discharged, the peculiar circumstances of the case did not inspire confidence in the court that the applicant would not misuse bail if granted. Despite the applicant's period of incarceration being more than 3 years and 6 months, the alleged criminal antecedents of the applicant, as well as that of his father and uncle, did not instil confidence in the court regarding his release on bail.

In view of the above, the Court did not find any merit in the present bail application, and dismissed the same.