The Court must be cognizant that accused would not utilise the shield anticipatory bail to repeat commission of the alleged offences: High Court of Delhi

For grant of anticipatory bail, the Court must apply its own mind to the question to decide whether a case has been made out for grant of such relief. Additionally, the Court must also be cognizant of the fact as to whether the accused is likely to utilise the shield anticipatory bail to repeat commission of the alleged offences and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD in the case of GAURAV MALIK vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS [BAIL APPLN. 401/2022] on 15.03.2022.

The facts of the case are that the prosecutrix is a sales girl at a jewellery shop in Karol Bagh. She was separated from her husband, however, she has been residing at a flat in Uttam Nagar which was named her husband. While the prosecutrix was at her job, she received a call from a friend of her husband, who informed her that both her children a son of 18 years of age, and a daughter of 15 years of age were with him and he asked her to come home quickly. The prosecutrix rushed home to find Ranjit Singh, along with four persons, namely Vinay Bhasin, Sunil Kumar Sheela, Raghu Bansal and Shamsher Singh. It is stated that Ranjit Singh asked the prosecutrix to vacate the home, and when she refused to do so, he threatened to harm her children who had allegedly been held captive by him and were in his car which was parked outside the home.

The counsel’s Petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case, and that he runs a grocery shop and has been residing at his permanent residence for the past 20 years with his wife, children and aged parents. He stated that the accommodation at Shivaji Enclave had been shown by the Petitioner to the prosecutrix in good faith, and that the Petitioner received a call from the landlady that the prosecutrix had illegally trespassed into the property and was claiming that one Ranjeet had shifted them.

The respondent’s counsel submitted that the allegations in the FIR are of a serious nature and that the daughter of the prosecutrix was a minor when she was forced into prostitution by the landlady of the Shivaji Enclave flat wherein she was made to enter sexual relations with many men, including the Petitioners herein.

A prima facie reading of the FIR indicates that a prostitution ring had been established by the accused involving the prosecutrix and her minor daughter. Furthermore, the factum of the minor daughter allegedly being sexually exploited by various men is unconscionable and gives way to the possibility of the commission of the offences of child prostitution as well as the illegal trafficking of the prosecutrix and her daughter. In light of this, the Court did not deem it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman

Leave a Reply

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

Open chat