New Delhi, Apr 13 A Delhi court on Monday denied bail to a 26-year-old man accused of repeatedly assaulting, sexually abusing and threatening his former partner, observing that the gravity of the allegations, the corroborative material, the risk of tampering with evidence and the pending forensic evidence warrant his continued custody.
Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi was hearing the bail plea filed by accused Saksham Kaushik in a case registered against him under sections 64(1) (rape), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 138 (abduction) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the prosecution, the complainant met the accused in January, when he expressed romantic interest by following her around her college. In February, his conduct allegedly escalated to depriving her of personal space, accompanying her everywhere and even finding her an apartment, where he stayed against her will, while threatening to circulate her videos to prevent any complaints.
On February 19, after assaulting her a day earlier, the accused took the complainant to a hospital but kept her phone with him and monitored her movements to prevent her from fleeing. Later that month, he took her to Meerut and repeatedly punched her, leaving her face bruised. Claiming police links, the accused threatened the complainant and her brother that he could kill someone with no consequences.
On March 14, he allegedly assaulted her again, forced her to consume alcohol, broke her phone and laptop, and coerced her to perform degrading sexual acts while recording videos.
The complainant informed one of her professors about the situation the next day and met her at the college on March 16. She also attempted to persuade the accused to delete the videos, but he refused.
"In view of the gravity of the allegations, the material reflecting corroboration by the victim in her statement under section 183, BNSS (pre-trial recorded statements by a magistrate), and the fact that the investigation is still pending with the Forensic Sciences Laboratory (FSL), digital results awaited, coupled with the apprehension of tampering, influencing, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage," the judge said.
The defence counsel claimed that this was a case of "false implication and a distortion of facts driven by a (consensual) relationship that soured, culminating in a motivated and vicious FIR". He argued that the two had broken up on March 14, leading to false rape charges out of vengeance, and refuted all claims of physical and sexual violence on that date. The plea was annexed with material to show a "consensual" relationship, including hotel records, overnight stays, tenancy verification documents and "affectionate" WhatsApp chats.
The additional public prosecutor (APP) opposed the bail plea, accusing the defence of cherry-picking favourable chats and omitting several "blanks, images and voice notes". He asserted that the admitted relationship did not dilute the gravity of the alleged non-consensual sexual violence on March 14. He also raised concerns that the accused could threaten the complainant and influence her due to their proximity in daily life.
The court rejected the defence's argument that the alleged incidents of March 14 never occurred and noted the complainant's consistency in her statements at various stages of the proceedings.
It also affirmed the APP's submission that the accused could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if released, observing, "Considering the nature of the allegations, especially the alleged threats regarding videos, the apprehension cannot be treated as illusory at this stage, when forensic, digital evidence is still being collected, analysed and the investigation remains pending."
It refused to examine the argument of false implication arising out of a consensual relationship at the bail stage, saying it must be tested during trial.
The court also found the precedents cited by the defence inapplicable, stating, "This court is of the view that the case at hand is distinguishable from the law reports relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. There is no dispute about the fact that both the parties are adult and consenting, but the distinguishable fact is that the applicant not only developed physical intimacy with the complainant without her consent when she was intoxicated but also recorded the vulgar act and committed act(s) of voyeurism."
The court further noted that the relationship lasted less than three months, making precedents on intercourse on promise of marriage inapplicable as they were largely addressing prolonged relationships. Observing that the case involved allegations beyond rape, including voyeurism and criminal intimidation which cannot be refuted because of a prior existing relationship, the court found the bail application to be without merit and dismissed it.
