Nothing has been shown to the Court in the form of any cogent and primfacie evidence which could show that he has threatened anybody or tried to tamper with the evidence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail. This was said in the case of Ameet Khandelwal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi [BAIL APPLN. 1162/2021] by Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar in the High Court of Delhi
The facts of the case are that a bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 376/506/509 IPC. It was filed after Court of Sessions dismissed his anticipatory bail application on 01.04.2021, holding that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
The petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case subsequent to being regularly threatened implications in false cases. It is further contended that the FIR are highly improbable and cannot be believed as no dates, day, time has been mentioned about the incidents. It is further submitted that delay in filing FIR after 7 months of the alleged incident under a well planned strategy to extort money from the petitioner and to take revenge from the petitioner for the cases filed by him for redressal of bonafide grievances as the owner of the company.
On the other hand, the respondent contended that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is further contended that the accused/petitioner may not be available for the trial as he has mentioned different addresses in the bail petition and there are chances that he may flee from the justice. As regard the delay in lodging the FIR, it is submitted that the complainant remained silent to save the matrimonial trauma of her mother and the marriage of the complainant was fixed during that period and if the fiance of the complainant would have come to know about the incident, he would have broken the relationship
The Court referred to the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] wherein it was said that “Court should be loath to reject the grant of anticipatory bail in as much as it impinges on the personal liberty of a person. Meaning thereby, unless and until there is an imminent and a great imperative to have a custodial interrogation of an accused, the anticipatory bail does not deserve to be denied”.
The Court after perusing the record in the light of the above judgment said that “nothing has been shown to the Court in the form of any cogent and primfacie evidence which could show that he has threatened anybody or tried to tamper with the evidence. No doubt, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature but the severity of the allegations is not the only consideration which should result in denial of grant of bail to the petitioner”. Hence, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail.