Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M Singh, J.
Swami Ganeshanand - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT Of Delhi) & Anr. - Respondent
Bail Application No. 1939 of 2020; Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10061 of 2020, 62 of 2020
Decided On : 03-11-2020
K.K. Manan, Advocate, Udita Bali, Advocate, Raghuvinder Verma, Advocate, Rakhi Dubey, Advocate
The court emphasized the discretion to grant anticipatory bail based on the nature of the offense, the role of the offender, and the surrounding circumstances, while considering the need for fair investigation and the possibility of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - CrPC - Section 438, Section 482 - IPC Sections 354-A, 509 - POCSO Act, 2012 - Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail for charges under IPC Sections 354-A, 509 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The complainant, a minor, alleged indecent acts and abusive behavior by the petitioner. Multiple FIRs were filed against the petitioner by women in the neighborhood.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the anticipatory bail plea, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner's absconding, and the multiple pending FIRs against him. The court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to surrender immediately.
Issues: Allegations of indecent acts and abusive behavior, multiple pending FIRs, petitioner's absconding, and threats extended to the complainant and her family.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner's absconding, and the multiple pending FIRs against him, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation.
Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to surrender immediately, while keeping his remedies to seek regular bail open.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. - The present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the CrPC. The case against the Petitioner arises out of FIR No.215/2020 under Sections 354-A and 509 of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, ''POCSO Act'') registered at PS Govind Puri.
2. The Complainant, aged 17 years old, had alleged that on 14th May, 2020, at about 11:00 P.M while she was studying in her house, the Petitioner had clicked 4 to 5 photographs of her and made obscene gestures towards her. It was further alleged that the Petitioner had pointed towards the Complainant and abused her in filthy language. The incident was not reported immediately. However, on 14th June, 2020, the Complainant''s mother and the Complainant reported the incident and an FIR was registered.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that the allegations made in the complaint are false. Mr. Manan, ld. Senior Counsel submits that even if the case of the Complainant is taken at the highest, Section 354-A and Section 509 IPC are bailable offences and under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, the maximum sentence would be three years. Under these circumstances, he submits that the Petitioner is entitled to bail. He further submits that under similar circumstances in Joginder Kumar v. State (Bail Appln. 2364/2018) and Umesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Bail Appln. 2418/2016) , ld. Single Judges have granted bail.
4. Mr. Manan, ld. Senior Counsel, further submits that after the filing of this petition, during the period when interim protection was granted by this Court, the Petitioner has moved out of the colony where the Complainant resides, in order to avoid any allegations of harassment or threats against him. He submits that the Petitioner now resides at E-16, DDA Banquet Hall, Sant Nagar, Near ISKCON Temple, East of Kailash, New Delhi. It is further submitted that the Petitioner''s family consists of his wife, a daughter who is of marriageable age, and a son. He also submits that the crime is not so heinous, so as to warrant custodial interrogation or judicial custody.
5. Reliance is placed by Mr. Manan upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , to argue that the Supreme Court has clearly laid down in the said judgment that mechanical and casual arrests should be avoided, even in cases under Section 498-A of the IPC. He submits that the directions passed in the said judgment shall not only apply in proceedings under Section 498-A, but also in cases where the punishment for the offence is less than seven years, or may extend up to seven years. He submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment in Arnesh Kumar (supra) . Accordingly, he states that the Complainant''s apprehensions no longer exist, and the Petitioner can be extended protection by this Court.
6. Insofar as the submission of the Complainant that there are other FIRs against the Petitioner is concerned, Mr. Manan submits that FIR Nos.349/2020 and 350/2020 are FIRs which are filed due to some other civil disputes which exist with a third party. He further submits that these FIRs do not show that the Petitioner is a habitual offender.
7. On behalf of the Complainant, Ms. Rakhi Dubey, ld. counsel, submits that this is a case of a heinous offence being committed, considering that the Complainant is less than 18 years of age. She further submits that even after this Court had granted interim protection to the Petitioner, threats have been extended to the Complainant and her family. She submits that there are many other FIRs which have been lodged against the Petitioner by women in the neighbourhood, and he is a habitual offender. Reliance is placed by Ms. Rakhi Dubey, ld. counsel, on the following judgments:
1) Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashish Chatterjee and Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No. 4590/2010)
2) State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav pd. Yad
