When there is no substantial reason to detain the accused in custody, against whom a complaint had been registered, then such accused can be granted bail. A single judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Subramonium Prasad in the matter of Nikhil Bhattal Vs. The State (BAIL APPLN.1520/2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR registered at Police Station South Rohini for offences punishable under Sections 328, 389 and 34 IPC.
In the present case, the complainant filed a complaint stating that the petitioner came to his shop looking for marble stones/tiles for a renovation of his residence and insisted the complainant to visit his house. When the complainant reached the petitioner’s house, he introduced him to his girlfriend, who offered the complainant some soft drink, consuming which the complainant felt dizzy. Later the complainant was left to rest in a room. The complainant stated in the complaint that he got unconscious when the petitioner’s girlfriend started rubbing his head. He also, stated that when he gained consciousness, he saw the petitioner’s girlfriend rubbing his private part. Out of anger he broke the phone of the petitioner’s girlfriend and also complained to the petitioner about the same. Thereafter the complainant stated that the petitioner started to demand a mobile phone, a TV, and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the complainant and threatened the complainant that if his demands were not met, his girlfriend would file a case of rape against the complainant. The petitioner also complained that after the incident the petitioner called the complainant for money more than 25 times. Thereby the complainant registered an FIR at a Police Station.
The petitioner and his girlfriend had also filed an FIR against the complainant for the offences under sections 376/506 IPC. The petitioner got arrested and he filed a bail application before the learned sessions judge which got rejected. later petitioner filed a second bail application which was again rejected by the learned sessions judge, on the ground that the investigation of the case was at a nascent stage and the possibility of the petitioner threatening the complainant could not be ruled out. Thereby the petitioner approached the court by filing an instant bail application. Further, a status report had been filed and the status report indicated that the voice sample of the petitioner was obtained after taking the permission of the Court and the same was been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The status report also indicated that opinion regarding intoxication of the complainant was obtained from the Medical Superintendent of Bhagawan Mahavir Hospital by giving a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner should be released on bail since the charge sheet was already filed and there was no reason to retain the petitioner in custody. Both the APP and the counsel for the complainant opposed that the petitioner should not be granted bail because the co-accused was still at large. The counsel for the complainant also submitted that the complainant had been receiving threatening phone calls.
After hearing both the councils and going through the material on record the court observed that- “Just because the complainant is alleging that he is getting threatening calls, it will not be appropriate to keep the accused in custody and the Court can lay down conditions to ensure that the complainant is not harassed. There is nothing to show that till the co-accused is not arrested the petitioner has to be kept in custody.” Thereby the court granted bail to the petitioner.