0

Petitioner charged for offences punishable under Sections 328, 389 and 34 IPC, granted bail: The High Court of Delhi

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. The aforementioned was the conclusion given by the Delhi High Court in the case of Nikhil Bhattal V. The State [BAIL APPLN.1520/2021] which was decided upon by the single judge bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad on 22nd July 2021.

The facts of the case are as follows. A complaint was filed by one Rishab Jain (Complainant) stating that has a business of marble and tiles. the petitioner herein came to his shop and asked for some good quality marble stones/tiles for renovation of his residence and he insisted that the complainant must visit his house. On visiting the house of the petitioner, the complainant was introduced to his girlfriend, who offered him a soft drink after which he started feeling dizzy. It is stated that when the complainant regained consciousness, he was shocked to see that the girlfriend was rubbing his private part. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner started demanding a mobile phone, a TV and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the complainant and threatened him that if his demands are not met, his girlfriend would file a case of rape against the complainant. It is stated that after the incident, the petitioner called the complainant for money more than 25 times. The complainant also produced various voice recordings in which the petitioner and his girlfriend are demanding money from the complainant and threatening him that if their demands are not met a case of rape would be filed against the complainant.

The Status Report indicates that the voice sample of the petitioner was obtained after taking the permission of the Court and the same has been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant has been receiving threatening phone calls. He further states that the co-accused is still at large and therefore bail ought not be granted to the petitioner. 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.

The court perused the facts and arguments presented and was of the opinion that petitioner should be granted bail with subject to certain conditions, “a) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount who should be a relative of the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. b) The complainant is a resident of C-57, Ahinsa Vihar, Secor-9, Rohini, New Delhi and the petitioner resides at House No. A-31, 2nd Floor, Pocket-0, Sector 2, Rohini, North West Delhi, 110085. The petitioner is directed not to enter Sector-09 Rohini till the examination of the complainant. c) The petitioner shall not leave NCT of Delhi without prior permission of this Court. d) The petitioner shall report to the concerned Police Station every alternate day at 10:30 AM and should be released after completing the formalities within half an hour. e) The petitioner is directed to give all his mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times. f) The petitioner has given his address in the memo of parties and shall continue to reside in the same address. In case there is any change in the address, the petitioner is directed to intimate the same to the IO. g) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or try to influence the witnesses. h) Violation of any of these conditions will result in the cancellation of the bail given to the petitioner.”

click here for judgment

Leave a Reply

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