Blog

When the petitioner has joined investigation and has already given his mobile phone to the investigating agency and the investigation is nearing completion, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in custody as held by the High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case of Amit Malik v. State  (BAIL APPLN. 1400/2021 & CRL.M.A. 6628/2021)

The facts leading to the instant case are that the prosecutrix told the petitioner that she is contesting a divorce petition with her husband and there is a dispute regarding a flat with her husband. Her husband got a stay order in August, 2020 and the prosecutrix informed the petitioner that she will not require any help regarding the said flat. At the moment, the petitioner got to know that he will not be getting the flat, he started blackmailing and torturing the prosecutrix. In October, 2020 the petitioner asked the prosecutrix to accompany him to kalka mandir and picked her from her residence. As soon as the prosecutrix sat in the car, the petitioner locked her inside the car and took her phone away, recklessly drove the car and molested her. He threatened her either to give her flat to him or get the bank papers signed. It is stated that the petitioner took an obscene video of the prosecutrix and started blackmailing her to fulfil his sexual desires. The petitioner installed GPS in her car and followed her at all locations. On the basis of the said complaint, the instant FIR was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Section 438 CrPC for grant of bail in the event of arrest in the instant FIR but the same was rejected by an order dated 16.04.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant petition for grant of bail in the event of arrest for offences under Section 354, 354D, 506 IPC.

After the perusal of the facts and arguments by the respective parties, the Hon’ble Court held, “Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation and has already given his mobile phone to the investigating agency and the investigation is nearing completion, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in custody. In view of the above, this Court is, therefore, inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest on certain conditions.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani