Vikas Dogra v. State of H.P.

Sammed AkiwateCase SummaryLeave a Comment

Vikas Dogra v. State of H.P.

Vikas Dogra v. State of H.P.
In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Cr.M.P.(M) 125/2015
Before Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Decided on February 5, 2015

Relevancy of the case: Bail application in a case involving sending of morphed pictures to the victim’s brother

Statutes & Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66, 67)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 292, 354, 376, 506)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 164, 437, 439)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner has approached this court for in a case registered under Sections 292, 354, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
  • The petitioner and the prosecutrix know each other as they have studied together at plus one level. In December 2012, the petitioner sent a friend request to her on Facebook. As they were known to each other, they had been chatting on Facebook regularly. The petitioner proposed her on Facebook in March 2013 which was then turned down. Thereafter, the petitioner pressurized her for marriage. She had rejected the proposal as she learned that petitioner is of another cast.
  • With the purpose of taking revenge from her for this rejection, the petitioner sent a message to her brother. This message contained a nude image where her face was morphed on someone else’s body. On the basis of this message, the FIR was filed. In her statement before the Magistrate, she had claimed that the petitioner made sexual contact with her. The petitioner was also charged for offences under Section 376 IPC.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The allegations of rape made by the prosecutrix are serious in nature. But her silence for a long time is required to be viewed with an eye of suspicion. It is also established that both the parties are not strangers to each other and had indulged in a physical relationship. Not only that, but the petitioner also proposed her for marriage.
  • The prosecutrix, while lodging a complaint against the petitioner on 13.12.2013, made no mention of rape and the explanation that she was under threat or was scared cannot be readily accepted.

Final Decision

  • The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail with a bond of ₹ 50,000. In case the petitioner misuses his liberty or violates any conditions imposed on him, the investigation agency shall be free to apply for the cancellation of the bail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *