While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH in the case of VINAY SAHARAN vs. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [BAIL APPLN 723/2022] on 30.03.2022.
The facts of the case are that the Complainant who is the father of the deceased, lodged an FIR against 5 accused persons i.e. in-laws of the deceased including the applicant-accused. The Complainant has alleged that his daughter got married to the brother-in-law of applicant. Soon thereafter, the accused family members including the applicant started to harass and physically torture the deceased on the pretext of dowry demands. There are specific allegations against the accused persons wherein they are being held responsible for the death of the complainant’s daughter.
It was further alleged that the complainant had transferred ₹10 lakhs in the name of the daughter, however, the accused persons were not satisfied with it and started asking for another ₹10 lakhs. The daughter of the complainant was also beaten badly by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and Vinay. Aggrieved by the behavior of the family members, his daughter committed suicide by hanging on the ceiling fan with a piece of cloth.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the allegation has been made with the object of humiliating the applicant by getting him arrested solely because he is the brother-in-law of the co-accused Pratap Singh. Therefore, the applicant strongly apprehends that he may be arrested on the allegation of having committed a non-bailable offence in the present case by the investigating agency at the instance of and in connivance with the complainant, who is seeking revenge of the death of her daughter in which the applicant does not have any role.
The counsel appearing on behalf of state submitted that since the applicant was absconding, proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. have been initiated against him. It was also contended that so far as the judgments, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are concerned they lay down the general principles of the grant of anticipatory bail in different circumstances, however, it does not lay down that the anticipatory bail has to be given, irrespective of the role attributable to an accused in the commission of the offence.
The Court held that no useful purpose would be served in taking the applicant in custody. Keeping in mind the fact that all relevant materials have already been collected by the police, and after completion of the investigation, the accused was therefore, granted bail. It was observed, “The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.”
Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman