In petition/applications filed in cases of sexual offences, a Certificate/note has to be annexed certifying that name of victim is not mentioned either in the body of the petition or in the annexure, directs Delhi HC
Justice SwaranaKanta Sharma [24-01-2024]

Read Order: MOHIT PILANIA versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. [DEL HC-BAIL APPLN. 4252/2023]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 25, 2024: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bail petition of a co-accused in a case of criminal conspiracy where the main accused married the complainant for the purpose of cheating money from her. The High Court also emphasized the need for ensuring that the identity of victimof sexual assault is not disclosed in the petitions.

The bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been filed by the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered under Sections 419/420/493/494/495/376/109/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The brief facts of the case were that the case was registered on the complaint of one Ms. P. In her complaint, she alleged that she had met the main accused Aarav @ Ravi Gautam through online matrimonial site “Jeewansathi.com” and got married to him. On 18.11.2021, she had received a phone call from a woman, who had introduced herself as Nikita, and had told her that accused Aarav was her husband. It was then that she realised that Aarav was already married to another lady when he had got married to her. The accused Aarav had also taken away her gold jewellery and had mortgaged it for bank loan. She had lodged a complaint against him and thereafter, the present FIR was registered and the accused was arrested.

The statement of Ms. P was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she had corroborated her statement recorded under Section 161. She had further revealed that the accused Aarav had applied for several loans in her name and PAN Card and had also transferred funds in different bank accounts. She had further alleged that the present accused/applicant Mohit had accompanied main accused Aarav when the date of marriage was fixed in this case.

It was the case of the applicant that he had been falsely implicated in the present case, and the only allegation against him was that he had visited the house of complainant, met her parents and had affirmed the fact that the main accused Aarav @ Ravi Gautam had lost his parents. It was further submitted that the applicant was not aware that main accused Aarav was already married and already had a child. It was his case that the accused had merely attended the Roka ceremony and had received some money in his account on the asking of main accused Aarav.
 

The State Counsel contended that during investigation, it has transpired that he had shown interest in 1411 women on the website. It was argued that it is the present applicant who had accompanied the main accused to the house of the complainant at the time of roka ceremony and had introduced himself as his friend and had met the parents of the complainant and had affirmed that the main accused had lost his parents.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice SwaranaKanta Sharma observed that it was the accused herein who had convinced the complainant and her parents for the marriage by misleading them and convincing them that the main accused was unmarried and his parents had passed away. On the said assurance, they had acted and the accused and complainant got married. Moreover, the submissions of the IO revealed that the present accused/applicant was a teacher of the main accused Arav and had, by hatching a criminal conspiracy, cheated the complainant of about Rs. 50,000.

It was also clear from the investigation till date that the main accused Aarav had shown interest in 1411 profiles of women of different age groups on Jeevansathi.com and it was still a matter of investigation as to how many other women he had cheated, married, got engaged to for the purpose of cheating money from them.

The applicant had submitted that the brother of the complainant is a judicial officer and therefore, due to his influence, the FIR was registered and bail was not being granted to the present accused/applicant. The High Court took strong objection to these submissions since it was not the submission alone, but the counsel for the accused had also filed on record an annexure which was a letter with the subject mentioned as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) addressed to the Chief Justice of India. The annexure revealed the name of the judicial officer, his designation and his present posting as well as the details of complainant herself which had been filed on record.

“The counsel for the accused should have been aware that the name of the complainant cannot be revealed in any record and that it is an offence to do so. Even the disclosure of name and designation as well as the present posting of the brother of the complainant is sufficient to disclose her identity which is also in contravention of provisions of Section 228A of IPC”, the Bench held.

The Bench was of the opinion that even if the complainant is the sister of a judicial officer, the same does not mean that just by being the sister of a judicial officer, she has lesser rights compared to other complainants in a criminal case to stand up and fight for herself and seek justice from the Courts of law.

“Moreover, a judicial officer by virtue of being a judicial officer does not waive his fundamental rights which are available to all other citizens of the country as also his social and private rights to look after and stand by his family. He also has a right as the biological sibling of the complainant/victim to stand by her and his family and taking action against any person who brings harm or disrepute to his family”, the Bench noted.

As per the Bench, the contention of the applicant that due to the brother of the complainant being a judicial officer in Delhi, the accused is not getting justice from any Court, in absence of any evidence to support the same, had to be rejected out-rightly. It was further opined by the Bench that the co-accused has targeted innocent women and the present accused in this case has been his close associate to help him succeed in his nefarious design of misguiding the family of the complainant and leading her to get married to him and extracting huge amount of money to his own and the bank account of the present accused for which evidence is on record. Such accused persons need to be dealt with a stern hand so that if granted bail, they will not indulge in similar activities of spoiling lives of other women.

“Arranged marriages are still an entirely family driven decision for their daughters, and the family relies heavily on assurances given by the friends and relatives of the prospective groom”, the Bench held while also observing, “To suggest that since the person cheated is kin of judicial officer and if bail is not granted, it would amount to taking sides in judicial system will amount to judging judicial system with a myopic eye and suggest that a judicial system is so fragile that it would take sides and not do justice.”

Placing reliance upon the judgment in Saleem v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.wherein it was opined that to ensure that the identity of victims of sexual assault is not disclosed in the petitions, the Bench held, “Further, the Registry in these circumstances, is also directed to ensure that henceforth in any petition/applications etc. filed in cases involving sexual offences, a certificate/note be annexed with the first page of the petition by the counsel for the petitioner/applicant certifying that the name of the complainant/victim or any other name etc. has not been mentioned or divulged either in the body of the petition or in any of the annexures filed along with it which will divulge the identity of the victim.”

Thus, dismissing the bail petitions, the Bench ordered, “With regard to the present case, Registry is directed to immediately mask the name of the victim and the judicial officer in annexure -E and particulars about the judicial officer mentioned in para 6 of the grounds of present bail application.”