IN THE COURT OFADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, DISTT.

EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE VERSUS DEEPAK BATRA

Aged **48** yrs
S/o Sh. Rajkumar Batra
R/o WA161-A Shakarpur
Ph.9717015147
F.I.R. No. 298/2017
U/S 376/506 IPC
P.S. Shakarpur

SUB:- ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. ON

BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT/ACCSUED PERSON NAMELY DEEPAK
BATRA.

Sir,
It Is Respectfully Submitted As Under:-

Brief Facts of the Case:

That as per the story of the prosecution on 17th June 2017 the

mother and wife of the accused went to the house of prosecutrix

with a complaint that prosecutrix and accused are having

illegitimate relationship. Thereupon, prosecutrix made

correspondence and both mutually decided to meet at laxmi nagar

metro station. Whereupon, accused along with prosecutrix went to

the house belonging to the friend of the accused. Now, the

allegations levelled against the accused are that at the said house

accused in a disrespectful manner treated her, beaten her and

made sexual intercourse without the consent of the prosecutrix.

Moreover, in the said F.I.R prosecutrix alleged that accused kept

 her in said house for 4(four) days and did not allowed her to go out

on the pretext that if she go out of the said house, accused will

finish his family and accused also asked her to sign on plain white

papers.

Grounds for the grant of bail:

1. That the I.O. in this case did not investigated the matter properly, she

investigated only to support the complaint of the complainant rather to

bring the true facts and conduct of the applicant which proves the

innocence of the applicant.

2. That it is worth mentioning that the statements made by the

prosecutrix/complainant in the said F.I.R. are paradoxical and

contradictory on its face value as she made serious allegations against

the accused that she was confined in the said house by the accused

where accused raped her, treated her without courtesy and moreover

beaten her. But, on the other hand it is admitted fact by the prosecutrix

that on 27.06.2017 prosecutrix received a call from the Police Station

Shakarpur about the accused that he is sitting there and when

prosecutrix reached police station, she did not disclosed anything to

the police which shows this F.I.R is an aftermath and afterthought.

Hence, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

3. That the prosecutrix and accused were enjoying each other’s company

to the fullest as prosecutrix use to send her pictures and videos

moreover nude pictures through whatsapp to the accused. Hence she

was involved in making physical relations with the

 applicant/accused which draws an inference that she freely agreed to

submit herself, while in free and unconstrained possession of her

physical and moral power to act in a manner she wanted as she is a

mature woman. Hence the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

4. That the entire case of the prosecution is mere abuse of process as there

is long and unexplained delay which draws inference that the

prosecution case is second-thought of the complainant and it is a case

where consensual-intercourse-becomes-rape-afterwards. And the

same case is coloured in blacker version with selfish concealed

motives.

5. That it is also very pertinent to mention here that the allegations made

by the complainant do not support the medical evidence in the MLC of

the complainant as there is no iota of evidence which supports the

allegation of violence between the accused and prosecutrix, hence

inference can be drawn on the basis of this, that the act of making

physical relation with the applicant was an act of reason, accompanied

with deliberation after the mind of the complainant has weighed as in

a balance , the good and evil on each side, with the existing capacity

and power to withdraw the assent according to her will or pleasure. In

Prahlad Nath v. State of Assam, 1994(2) East Cri C

18(Guwahati). Where the doctor found that there was no marks of

violence on the body of prosecutrix and if the prosecutrix is aged 20

years consent is not ruled out and conviction for rape is not possible.
6. *****The factual situation comes under the four corners of judgment

Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.’ 2006 (10)

SCC 92 "It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted

on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring

confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the

prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the 'whole

surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case

set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary

evidence of the prosecutrix. The Crl.A.860/2013 Page 8 of 10 courts

shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the

prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to

happen."*******

7. That the prosecutrix did not give any explanation about the Why the

delay of around 15 days was made by her in lodging the F.I.R? This

makes the whole circumstances highly improbable and unlikely to

happen. There are ‘n’ numbers of judgements of Hon’ble Supreme

Court Of India and other Hon’ble different High Courts which states

that the delay in lodging the F.I.R must be explained as it raises clouds

of doubts on the alleged offence.

8. That it is pertinent to give in your notice that in the whole episode (i.e.

from 17-06-2017 to 01.06.2017) prosecutrix was carrying mobile phone

and was connected to the accused and whole world via calls and

internet. Hence, this is ruled out that she was confined in the said

house.
9. In State vs Sandeep Tiwari @ Ansul Tiwari on 10 August, 2016 the

judgment pronounced by Ms Sarita Birbal held in Para 23. The

prosecutrix was well above 18 years of age at all material times.

Sexual intercourse between

two adults of opposite sex with their free and voluntarily consent is

no offence. There is no evidence

that the accused disrobed the prosecutrix or threatened her or

injured her. Her MLC Ex. PW3/B

records that the prosecutrix was not found any fresh injury.

10. That the applicant is residing at the above address with his family and

have deep roots in society, therefore, there is no chance of his

absconding or flee from justice and the same inference can be drawn

from the conduct of the applicant as he is obeying all orders of the

Hon’ble Court and have full faith on the Court of law. Hence the

applicant should be released on bail as in Vaman Narain Ghiya vs

State of Rajasthan, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 745 held “what is contemplated

by the bail is to “ procure the release of a person from legal custody,

by undertaking that he shall appear at the time and place designated

and submit himself to the jurisdiction and judgment of the court”

and the Supreme Court, adopting a liberal approach, in Hussainara

Khatoon vs State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98. cautioned that pre-trail

detention is not to be encouraged, if the court is satisfied after taking

into consideration that the accused has his roots in the community and

is not likely to abscond, he can be released on his personal bond.

11. That the accused/applicant has clean and unblemished antecedent and

never involved in any criminal activities nor convicted in any case and
 is ready to furnish the sound surety before this Hon’ble Court if release

on bail.

12. That the accused applicant undertakes to appear before this Hon’ble

Court on each day, if released on bail and this Hon’ble Court may

impose any condition on the accused applicant for admitting him to

bail.

PRAYER:-

Keeping in view of the about said facts of and circumstance it is there

for respectfully prayer that the applicant/accused may kindly be

release on bail in the interest of justice.

Delhi: Applicant

Dated: Through

Mahesh Sharma

(Advocate )
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, DISTT. SHAHDARA

KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE VERSUS DEEPAK BATRA

Aged **48** yrs.

S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Batra

R/o WA161-AShakarpur

Ph.9717015147

F.I.R. No. 298/2017

U/S 376/506 IPC

P.S. Shakarpur

INDEX
S.No. Particulars Page No.

1 Bail Application

2 Copy of the F.I.R.

3 Vakalatnama

Applicant

Dated

Delhi Through

Counsel

Mahesh Sharma

(Advocate)