Single judge permitted bail to Vikas and Naveen Rana. Their case involves allegations of rape and extortion.
Anticipatory bail granted with bonds, conditions to surrender passports, not leave the country, not contact complainant or witnesses, and join investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 03, 2015
+ BAIL APPLN. 2158/2014
VIKAS RANA
..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal with Mr.Vaibhav Sethi, Mr.Vinayak Bhandari and Mr.Gaurav Kakkar, Advocates.
versus
STATE
..... Respondent Through : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP. Mr.G.Tushar Rao with Mr.Kumar Ranjan, Mr.A.Singla, Advocates for the complainant along with complainant present in person.
..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal with Mr.Vaibhav Sethi, Mr.Vinayak Bhandari and Mr.Gaurav Kakkar, Advocates.
versus
STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
..... Respondent Through : Mr.Navin K.Jha, APP. Mr.G.Tushar Rao with Mr.Kumar
Bail Appl.2158/2014 & 2256/2014 Page 1 of 8
Ranjan, Mr.A.Singla, Advocates for the complainant along with complainant present in person.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
a soft drink and she became unconscious. When she regained senses, she came to know that Vikas Rana had committed rape on her person. She was threatened by the petitioner to upload the video clip on face book and U-tube and also to send it to her family members. On return to India, Vikas Rana used to call her at his rented house at DLF Phase III, Gurgaon.
Bail Appl.2158/2014 & 2256/2014 Page 2 of 8
He committed rape upon her person 20-25 times under the threat to make public the video clips made by him. He left Max Insurance Company subsequently but continued to talk in indecent manner on phone. Vikas Rana threatened to kill her and her family members and insisted her to take divorce from her husband and to marry him. She lodged a complaint with Gurgaon police on 06.05.2014. On 11.05.2014, Vikas Rana was called at the police station along with his brother and family members. They put pressure on her to marry Vikas Rana after divorcing her husband. It is further alleged that on 10.08.2014 also she was threatened when she declined to go at Chhatarpur on the asking of the accused Vikas Rana. When she was compelled to meet him, under threat, Vikas Rana again committed rape on her person after locking the vehicle and threatened her to withdraw the complaint.
clip. Serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and Bail Appl.2158/2014 & 2256/2014 Page 3 of 8
they do not deserve anticipatory bail. After interim protection by this Court, they had threatened the complainant on various occasions for which she has lodged complaints with the police. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
is still awaited.
Bail Appl.2158/2014 & 2256/2014 Page 4 of 8
not appeal to mind as the prosecutrix was before the court and there was no occasion for her to seek divorce by mutual consent. It appears that subsequent to the settlement reported before the Gurgaon police some problem arose to its execution which led to the lodging of the FIR in question on 30.08.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed on record number of SMSs and text messages exchanged between the petitioner Vikas Rana and the complainant on various dates.
Bail Appl.2158/2014 & 2256/2014 Page 6 of 8
unexplainable as to why the complaint lodged before the Gurgaon police was not taken to its logical end and why it was withdrawn after reporting settlement. The prosecutrix moving the Family Court for seeking divorce
by mutual consent goes to show that the parties had attempted to act upon the settlement reported to Gurgaon police.
in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of `1,00,000/--each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating Officer with the condition that they shall join the investigation as and when required. They shall surrender their pass-ports (if any) in the Trial Court and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned. It is further ordered that they shall not contact the complainant
and the prosecution witnesses and also shall not extend any threat to any of them.
Bail Appl.2158/2014 & 2256/2014 Page 7 of 8
bail order shall not have any impact on merits of the case.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE
FEBRUARY 03, 2015/s a
Bail Appl.2158/2014 & 2256/2014 Page 8 of 8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in the pending FIR.
Whether the interim protection orders dated 26.09.2014 and 15.10.2014 should be confirmed.
Whether the petitioners have satisfied the conditions to be granted bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vikas Rana
Naveen Rana
State
S.P.Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
