In a criminal trial where the accused person appears to have absconded or is likely to threaten the witnesses and tamper with the outcome of the trial, the court will not be inclined to grant bail to the accused. This was held in the judgement passed by a single member bench of the High Court of Delhi consisting of Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case of Ishu v The State [Bail Application No. 2837 of 2021] pronounced on 16th August 2021.
The petitioner, Ishu has filed the present petition for the grant of instant bail in the event of her arrest after being accused of causing hurt through poisoning and extortion and having an FIR against her under sections 328, 389 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, Rishab Jain runs a marble and tiles business in Mangolpur Kalan, New Delhi. On 1st April 2021, one Nikhil Bhattal visited the complainant’s shop and ordered for some marble stone to be delivered to his residence in New Delhi. When the complainant reached Nikhil Bhattal’s residence, he was introduced to Bhattal’s girlfriend, Ishu who is the petitioner in this case. It is alleged that the petitioner offered a drink to the complainant, which made him dizzy and eventually caused him to pass out. The complainant allegedly woke up to see the petitioner rubbing on his private parts. The complainant narrated this incident to Bhattal who threatened to file rape charges against the complainant unless he gave them Rs 2,00,000 in cash, a mobile phone and a television set.
The petitioner and her boyfriend allegedly called and threatened the complainant more than 25 times with rape charges if their demands were not met. The complainant also submitted numerous voice recording indicating the same. The complainant reported the petitioner and her boyfriend to the police and the FIR was lodged on 10th April 2021 for the offences mentioned above. The petitioner’s boyfriend was arrested on 11th April 2021 and was granted bail by the High Court of Delhi on 22nd July 2021. However the petitioner switched off her phone, was missing to evade arrest until 30th July 2021 when she tried to apply for anticipatory bail which was refused to her. While pleading for instant bail, the petitioner’s counsel reasoned that the petitioner was only taking time to prepare her defense and not really absconding during the time when she could not be traced.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that “The petitioner is accused of an offence under Section 328 IPC, which is a serious offence. There is some justification in the contention of the learned APP that the conduct of the petitioner does show that there is a likelihood of her fleeing from justice and that she would not cooperate with the investigation. The probability of the petitioner and the co-accused, Nikhil Bhattal, extending threats to the complainant cannot be ruled out at this stage. In view of the above, this Court feels that this is not a fit case where the petitioner should be granted bail in the event of arrest.” Accordingly the petition for instant bail was dismissed by the court along with all other pending applications.