In The Court Of District & Sessions Judge, East Delhi

Bail Application No. _______ / 2017

In The Matter Of:-

Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma …….Petitioner

VERSUS
The State …… Respondent

FIR No: 0493 of 2017 (Dated: 28/08/2017)

PS: New Ashok Nagar
US: 376/506/323 OF IPC
District-East Delhi

INDEX

Srl. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Application for Bail, U/S-439 of Cr.P.C. 01-08

2. Annexure -P-1 09-11
Copy of the FIR
3.. Annexure -P-2 12-37
Copy of the Photographs
4.. Annexure -P-3 38
Copy of a undertaking procured by the
Complainant from the Petitioner that he will get
their alleged marriage registered in the Court.
She also alleges in the same undertaking that
her third child is fathered by the Petitioner.
5. Annexure -P-4 39
Copy of a Fee-Receipt, dated-25.08.2014,
showing the address of the sister of the
Complainant, named, Soni Kumari, to be the flat
of the Petitioner where the Complainant would
live.
6. Annexure -P-5 40-54
Copy of the Statement of the Account of the
bank of the Petitioner
7. Vakalatnama 55

PETITIONER
[In Judicial Custody]
THROUGH

SUSHIL KR. SHARMA, ADVOCATE,

(Enrolment No.-D/55/1995)
(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
877, LAWYERS’ CHAMBERS,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI- 110017
E-mail: [email protected]
Mob. No.:-9818165785
PLACE: Delhi
DATED: 11.09.2017.
 In The Court Of District & Sessions Judge, East Delhi
Bail Application No. _______ /2017

In The Matter Of:-

Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma

S/o Shri Mangal Sharma,
R/o 119D/ Pocket-6, MIG Flats,
Mayur Vihar-III,
Delhi- 110096.
Also At:
32M, Pocket-2, EHS, MIG Flats,
Mayur Vihar-III,
Delhi- 110096. …...Petitioner

VERSUS

The State
Through
The SHO,
PS-New Ashok Nagar,
New Delhi (District- East) …… Respondent

FIR No: 0493 of 2017 (Dated: 28/08/2017)

PS: New Ashok Nagar
US: 376/506/323 OF IPC
District-East Delhi

Petition Under Section 439 Of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,

For Grant Of Bail

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AS UNDER:-

1. That the Petitioner is a law abiding Citizen. He however, has been

falsely implicated by the Police by lodging against him completely
vexatious, false, frivolous and baseless FIR. The Copy of the FIR is
annexed herewith this Petition as an Annexure-P-1.

2. That the Petitioner was arrested by the Police on 28.08.2017. He had

fully cooperated in the investigations and consequently the Police did
not seek his Police Custody (PC), and consequently, he was sent to the
judicial custody (JC) on 29.08.2017. He is, therefore, behind the bars
for nearly 14 days.

3. The Petitioner and the Complainant are both married persons. The
Complainant got married in 2008. Both are merely 10th class/ 12th class
pass. Both are known to each other for quite a long time, i.e. long
before 2008, as they were neighbors in Patpatganj Village, Delhi prior to
 the marriage of the Complainant. After marriage, the Complainant
shifted to Kolkata and the Petitioner began to live in Mayur Vihar-III,
Delhi-96. The family of the Complainant had already shifted to Khora
Colony, Ghaziabad, UP, which is hardly about 2 Km. from the
residence/office of the Petitioner, the alleged place of occurrence.

4. That in the year, 2010, the Complainant got back to Delhi and began to
live in in a rented flat in Pocket-2, EHS, MIG Flats, Mayur Vihar-III,
Delhi-96. The husband of the Complaint began to work with the
Petitioner. The office/flat of the Petitioner was/is also in the same
colony at 32M, Pocket-2, EHS, MIG Flats, Mayur Vihar-III, Delhi-96.

5. That in the year, 2012, the Petitioner housed the Complainant in one of
the floor of his office/flat at 32M, Pocket-2, EHS, MIG Flats, Mayur
Vihar-III, Delhi-96.

6. That the allegations in the FIR are as follows:

Allegations in the FIR:

7. That the Petitioner had made a film/video of the Complainant while she
was taking bath in the bathroom of his office/flat and subsequently
made physical relationship with her by threatening her that either she
should obey, or else he would make her bathing video viral. The
Petitioner also threatened the Complainant not to tell about her
relationship with him to anyone or else he would defame her by
revealing to all that she had a boyfriend before her marriage.

8. That the Petitioner would make physical relations with her repeatedly on
the same pretext that he would be defaming her by revealing to all that
she had a boyfriend. While being intimate, the Petitioner made Several
other videos and threatened to destroy her if she ever told about the
same to anyone. When she opposed the Petitioner, he had several times
beaten her and her children and tried to set her house on fire.

9. That the Petitioner had married the Complainant in a closed room and
had made a video of the marriage too.

10. That the Petitioner had a bad eye on the sister of the Complainant.
11. That the Petitioner and the Complainant had physical relationship
between the period 2012 to 2017. On getting fed-up, the Complainant
ran away from the flat of the Petitioner on 26.02.2017.

Submissions Vis-a-Vis The Allegations Leveled In The FIR:

12. That on the alleged threat of making bathing video viral the
Petitioner would like to state that the Petitioner has not made any such
video nor has he ever had any camera in his bathroom to do that. This
averment of the Petitioner gets strengthened from the fact that the
Complainant has not specified the day, or date, or time when she took
the alleged bath in the bathroom of the Petitioner. She also fails to
specify as to when she first time became physically intimate with the
Petitioner.

It is submitted that Complainant and the Petitioner came in contact with

each other quite naturally, they being family friends and known to each
other for a very long time. No one compelled, or induced or pressurized
anyone. Even otherwise, it was an utterly insufficient/superficial
reasoning, which the Complainant has allegedly given to get physically
intimate with the Petitioner. It is beyond comprehension as to how a
bathing video could bring shame to her and her family, as also what
stopped her from complaining to the Police if it was so. It happens
almost every other day that the females get such miscreants sent
behind the bars for secretly video-graphing/photographing them. Not
even a rustic and totally uneducated female would get physically
intimate owing to the alleged threat.

13. That as for several other videos, the Petitioner would like to state
that the same were not made at the instance of the Petitioner. On the
contrary, it was the Complainant who had an acute habit of getting
herself filmed/video-graphed/photographed while being nude. It would
be relevant to mention herein that the Complainant was so much fond
of her nudity that she would send the Petitioner her nude videos on his
phone/whatsApp etc. not on one occasion or two, but on numerous
occasions. Her allegations about a singular instance of video-graphing
her in the bathroom and then she getting blackmailed by the Petitioner
holds no ground, the same being false, baseless and concocted. The
Petitioner is filing along with this application numerous photographs
 fully substantiating the averments of the Petitioner. The said
Photographs, Videos, Video-Callings are self-explanatory and speak
volumes about the comfort and coziness which the two enjoyed. The
said photographs are annexed herewith this Petition as Annexure P-2
(Colly.)

The Petitioner has also handed over to the Police one pen-drive
containing numerous Photographs, Videos, Video-Callings, Phone Calls,
etc. involving the Complainant and the Petitioner. He has also given a
copy of the said pen-drive to his Counsel. The contents of the said pen-
drive can be ascertained from the Police. The Counsel of the Petitioner
also has instructions to place the copy of the said pen-drive on the
record of this Hon’ble Court subject to the permission of this Hon’ble
Court.

14. That on the allegation of the alleged marriage, it is stated that it was
the Complainant who had forced the Petitioner to marry at Kalkaji
Temple, New Delhi, as also took an undertaking from him that he will get
the alleged marriage registered. It was she who had got a photo of the
alleged marriage made at the a photo studio at Kalkaji Temple only. She
also procured an undertaking from the Petitioner that he will get the
alleged marriage registered in the Court. She procured the said
undertaking from the petitioner by blackmailing him that her third child
was fathered by him and not by her husband, saying in her won words,
“HAM DONON KE BEECH MAIN EK BETA PAIDA HUA, (JO) HAMARE PYAR
KI NISHANI HAI.”. At the time of marriage, the Petitioner had bought for
the Complainant a gold Maang-Tika and a diamond nose pin. The said
undertaking is annexed herewith this Petition as Annexure P-3.

15. That as for her allegation that Petitioner had a bad eye on her sister too,
the Petitioner would state that this allegation is concocted, false, and
baseless, and the same is leveled belatedly as a result of an afterthought,
with malafide intentions and ulterior motives, just to falsely implicate the
Petitioner one way or the other. The sister of the Complainant, named,
Ms. Soni Kumar, was continuously/ permanently living with her for the
last about two and a half (2&½) years. While living with the Complainant,
her sister was studying in the School Of Open Learning and therefore
would stay in home almost the whole day, as she had nowhere to go. Her
 sister was there with her even when Complainant had left the flat of the
Petitioner on 26.02.2017. It is totally incomprehensible that the
Complainant was facing the kind of situation she has alleged in the FIR
and she chose not to complain about that to her sister who was living
with her 24x7 for such a long period, nor did she tell anything to her
husband. She also chose not to tell anything to her mother or other
family members who lived at a stone’s throw distance (Hardly 2 Km from
her). Further, she also did not tell anything to her neighbor living in the
other floors of the same building/Flat at 32M, Pocket-2, EHS, MIG Flats,
Mayur Vihar-III, Delhi-96. This allegation further establishes as to how
desperate the Complainant is to falsely implicate the Petitioner in the
name of her sister too. The copy of a Fee-Receipt of the School Of Open
Learning, dated-25.08.2014, containing the address of the office/flat of
the Petitioner is filed along with this Petition as an Annexure -P-4.

Other Pleas And Submissions:

16. That the Complainant would compel the Petitioner to spend a huge
money on her, her husband, her family and her other relatives. The
Petitioner would purchase for her garments, jewelerry and other
household items, like Mobile Sets, Washing Machine and Fridge, etc. She
has so far taken from the Petitioner a jewellery worth Approx.
Rs.1,25,000/- (Three Gold Chains, One diamond Nose-Pin, Two gold
Rings). He paid her mobile bills, as also the school fees of her children,
namely Master Jatin and Baby Nidhi Singh, studying in East Point School
and Vanasthali Public School respectively, for the years 2014-2015 and
2015-16, by way of Cash and Cheque. A fraction of what the Petitioner
had spent on the Complainant does reflect in the following table, which
tells volumes about how much the Petitioner was spending on the
Complainant, and her family members:

Date Amount Where the Amount Was Spent

08.04.2015 Rs.1,50,000/- Shailesh Singh (The husband of the

Complainant)

30.05.2015 Rs.19,732/- Pankaj Electronics, towards the

purchase of Washing Machine for the
Complainant.
 17.06.2015 Rs.2,00,000/- Shailesh Singh (The husband of the
Complainant)

20.07.2015 Rs.5,000/- Sachin Kumar (The son of maternal

uncle of the Complainant)

21.07.2015 Rs.2,500/- Sandeep Kumar Singh (The brother of

the husband of the Complainant)

29.07.2015 Rs.30,000/- Shailesh Singh (The husband of the

Complainant)

10.08.2015 Rs.5,000/- Sandeep Kumar Singh (The brother of

the husband of the Complainant)

27.08.2015 Rs.75,000/- Shailesh Singh (The husband of the

Complainant)

05.09.2015 Rs.5,000/- Sandeep Kumar Singh (The brother of

the husband of the Complainant)
10.09.2015 Rs.10,000/- Neetu Singh (The Complainant)

08.10.2015 Rs.25,000/- Shailesh Singh (The husband of the

Complainant)

20.11.2015 Rs.10,000/- Sandeep Kumar Singh (The brother of

the husband of the Complainant)

30.12.2015 Rs.1,00,000/- Shailesh Singh (The husband of the

Complainant)

14.03.2016 Rs.1,50,000/- Shailesh Singh (The husband of the

Complainant)

This table clearly demonstrates that the Petitioner was spending on the
Complainant and her family members a whooping sum running in lacs of
rupees. The pattern of outflux of money from the accounts of the
Petitioner in a span of merely 12 months leaves a lot of scope for
speculations as to how much he should have spent on her during his
relationship with the Complainant between the period 2012 to 2017.
The Petitioner is filing the related bank statement of account of the
Petitioner along with this Petition as Annexure P-5 (Colly.).

17. That the Complainant has portrayed herself to be a victim and to the
Petitioner, a tormentor. The material which he has handed over to the
Police contains a video which clearly demonstrates that the things
between the two were just opposite of what she has alleged. The
 Complainant not only fully dominated the Petitioner, but she would also
beat him. The Complainant is clearly seen in that video slapping,
shoving and rebuking the Petitioner in his office.

18. That in the given Case, all was good between the Complainant and the
Petitioner till the Petitioner was paying all her bills and fulfilling all her
demands- acceptable or unacceptable. She however, walked in the Police
Station and got a false FIR- U/S- 376, 506, 323 IPC registered, the
minute the Petitioner failed to toe the line set by her.

That as averred in the preceding paras, the allegations of the

Complainant are nothing but a bundle of blatant lies, the same being
totally false, baseless and concocted. The Complainant has leveled the
allegations with malafide intentions and ulterior motives, just to falsely
implicate the Petitioner.

19. That besides and without prejudice to the above, Delay in lodging the
F.I.R. is yet another strong plea in favor of the Petitioner. As per her
own allegations, the Complainant remained in the relationship with the
Petitioner between the period 2012 to 26.02.2017. She however,
stayed silent during this period despite the fact that her husband and her
sister were living with her. Her whole family and relatives also stay and
reside within the radius of 2 kms from her flat. Thereafter, as per her
own allegations, she walked out of the relation by leaving the flat of the
Petitioner on 26.02.2017. She offers no explanation as to what stopped
her from getting the FIR lodged for about Six months, i.e. from
26.02.2017 to 28.08.2017. The F.I.R was lodged on 28.08.2017. An
unexplained delay of over Five years and six months fully
substantiates the version of the Petitioner that he has been falsely
implicated in this Case.

20. That there is nothing which got to be further investigated in this matter.
The investigation in this case is complete for all practical purposes.

21. That the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi. He has his family
residing permanently in Delhi and has deep roots in the society. There is
no question of him fleeing from justice or absconding by any stretch of
the imagination.
22. That the antecedents of the Petitioner are completely clean. He belongs
to a respectable family. Prior to this, he has no FIR in his name, let alone
any conviction in any criminal case.

23. That the Trial of the case would take a long time and keeping the
Petitioner in Judicial Custody (JC) would not serve any fruitful purpose.
On the contrary, his whole family will come on the road if his
incarceration prolongs, he being the sole bread earner of his family,
comprising of three school/college going children.

24. That the Petitioner undertakes not to tamper with the evidence in this
case, nor to try and contact the Victims/Complaint in this case by any
way and means.

25. That the Petitioner undertakes to attend the proceedings before the
concerned Court regularly, as and when called upon to do so.

26. That the Petitioner further undertakes to abide by all the conditions which
this Hon’ble court pleases to impose to enlarge him on bail.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

enlarge the Petitioner on bail, subject to whatever conditions which this
Hon’ble Court deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this Case, and in
the interest of justice.

Petitioner
[In Judicial Custody]
Through

SUSHIL KR. SHARMA, ADVOCATE,

(Enrolment No.-D/55/1995)
(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
877, LAWYERS’ CHAMBERS,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI- 110017
E-mail: [email protected]
Mob. No.:-9818165785
PLACE: Delhi
DATED: 11.09.2017
 In The Court Of Shri Pulatsya Pramachala, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI,
East, KKD, Delhi
Bail Application No. 1602 / 2017

In The Matter Of:-

Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma …….Petitioner

VERSUS
The State …… Respondent

FIR No: 0493 of 2017 (Dated: 28/08/2017)

PS: New Ashok Nagar
US: 376/506/323 OF IPC
District-East Delhi

INDEX

[List Of Additional Documents Filed On Behalf Of the Petitioner]

Srl. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Call Detail Record (CDR) Of The Complainant for 01-05

the period 23.11.2016 to 22.12.2016.
2. Call Detail Record (CDR) Of The Complainant for 06-11
the period 23.01.2017 to 22.02.2017.
3.. Call Detail Record (CDR) Of The Complainant for 12-14
the period 23.02.2017 to 22.03.2017.

PETITIONER
[In Judicial Custody]
THROUGH

SUSHIL KR. SHARMA, ADVOCATE,

(Enrolment No.-D/55/1995)
(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
877, LAWYERS’ CHAMBERS,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI- 110017
E-mail: [email protected]
Mob. No.:-9818165785
PLACE: Delhi
DATED: 16.09.2017.
 Indian Penal Code, 1860

CHAPTER IV : GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

Section-90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.- A consent is
not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a
person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act
knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or
misconception; or
Consent of insane person-
if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable
to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or
Consent of child-
unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is
under twelve years of age.

Chapter XVI: Of Offences Affecting The Human Body

Sexual Offences
375. Rape.- A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted,
has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six
following descriptions:--
First.-Against her will.
Secondly.-Without her consent.
Thirdly.--With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by pulling her or any person
in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly.--With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her
consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes
herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly.--With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through
another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the
nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
Sixthly.--With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
Explanation.--Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the
offence of rape.
Exception.--Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen
years of age, is not rape.

Section-376. Punishment for rape.-(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by
sub-section (1), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which
may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own
wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or
with both:
Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the
judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.
(2) Whoever,--
(a) being a police officer commits rape-
(i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which
he is appointed; or
(iii) on a woman in his custody or in me custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or
(b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a
woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate
to him; or
(c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of
custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman's or
children's institution lakes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate
of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or
(d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official
position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
(f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or
(g) commits gang rape,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten
years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the
judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than
ten years,
Explanation I.--Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in
furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have
committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub-section.
Explanation 2.--"Women's or children's institution" means an institution, whether called an
orphanage or a home for neglected woman or children or a widows' home or by any other
name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of woman or children.
Explanation 3.--"Hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of
any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons
requiring medical attention or rehabilitation.

Of Hurt
Section-323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever, except in the case
provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to
one thousand rupees, or with both.

Chapter XXII: Of Criminal Intimidation, Insult And Annoyance

Section-506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.- Whoever commits, the offence of
criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.-- and if the threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with line,
or with both.