Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 1445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Radhye Shyam - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Application No. 2475 of 2021
Decided On : 16-11-2021
Mohit Mathur, Advocate, Damanpreet Kohli, Advocate, Manish Malhotra, Advocate, Tarun Gaur, Advocate, Harsh Gautam, Advocate, Meenakshi Chauhan, Advocate, Jitender Kumar Jha, Advocate, Sarsij Narayanam, Advocate
The court emphasized the need for circumspection in dealing with arrest at a pre-conviction stage and considered the potential influence on witnesses in granting bail.
Headnote:
Bail - Offences under Sections 376 IPC - Section 438 Cr.P.C - [SEXUAL HARASSMENT] - [Sections 376 IPC, 164 Cr.P.C, 155 Cr.P.C] - The court discussed the gravity of the charges under Section 376 IPC, the position of authority of the accused, and the potential influence on witnesses. The court also referred to the law relating to grant of anticipatory bail as laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694. The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for bail in the event of arrest in FIR No. 235/2021 for offences under Sections 376 IPC. The complainant, an employee of the petitioner's company, alleged that she was induced and pressurized into having physical relations with the petitioner, who was her employer. The petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Ld. Sessions Court, Dwarka, Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it necessary to apply great care and circumspection while dealing with arrest at a pre-conviction stage. It noted that the petitioner was no longer in a position to influence the witnesses and granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of sexual harassment, the position of authority of the accused, and the potential influence on witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was based on the analysis of the petitioner's position to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, as well as the application of the law relating to grant of anticipatory bail as laid down by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C has been filed for grant of bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in FIR No. 235/2021 dated 25.05.2021, registered at Police Station Janak Puri for offences under Sections 376 IPC.
2. The factual matrix which has transpired in this case is as under :
a) It is stated that the complainant was working in the Human Resource Department at the company of the Petitioner, M/s Dabas Securities and Allied Services. It is stated that the Petitioner would induce and pressurize female employees of his company to have physical relations with him. The complainant/prosecutrix states that she joined the company of the Petitioner during the Covid-19 lockdown, in June 2020, and the Petitioner in November 2020 allured her to meet him at a hotel and had forceful sexual intercourse with her. It is stated that the Petitioner forcefully raped the complainant at Holiday Inn in Agra on 30.12.2020. The FIR states that in January 2021, Petitioner again coaxed her to meet him at a hotel room and the same was refused by the complainant. The Petitioner herein without any notice or reason, fired the complainant from her job in the company.
b) However, the complainant rejoined the job after talking to the reporting manager, who informed the complainant about how she had been harassed in the same manner by the Petitioner. The FIR further states that after rejoining the company, she was promoted and her work had increased, consequently raising her salary. It is stated that another employee who had joined as receptionist also was dragooned into having physical relations with the Petitioner, and the complainant due to imposition by the Petitioner, succumbed under pressure after repeatedly airing her discomfort in the workplace. It is stated that the complainant recounted this incident to one of her colleagues and friend, one Rajiv Jha, who told the Petitioner, on a phone call, to desist from exploiting his employees through allurement. She further states that due to this call made by her friend, he filed an FIR against the complainants friend for criminal intimidation.
c) Investigation is still ongoing in the instant matter and Charge-sheet is yet to be filed with the Sessions Court. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been recorded by the Ld. Magistrate Dwarka Court on 27.05.2021. The statement of Ms. R.S., a former employee at the company of the Petitioner was recorded telephonically under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statement of another employee - VB, was recorded by the I.O. telephonically on 30.05.2021. The telephonic conversations of the Petitioner and the complainant during her tenure of employment in Petitioners company have been transcribed and attached on the record.
d) The Ld. Sessions Court, Dwarka, Delhi dismissed the Petitioners plea for anticipatory bail vide order dated 01.07.2021. The Ld. Court reasoned that the contents of FIR are supported by the Section 164 statement of the prosecutrix complainant. Secondly, the Court relied upon two conversations presented before that Court by the I.O. wherein the Petitioner had approached other lady employees of his company for sexual favors. The order also records that these statements were later retracted by both the employees in question on 02.06.2021. Further, the Ld. Court relied upon the transcriptions of conversations exchanged between the Petitioner and Complainant, and opined that the Petitioner was in a position of authority as the employer of the complainant and abused his superior position to forcefully subjugate the complainant to enter into an involuntary sexual relationship during the course of her employment, despite the resistance shown by the complainant. Further, on refusal shown by the complainant to have intercourse with the Petitioner, in January 2021, he fired her from the job and asked her to look for employment elsewhere.
3. Heard arguments of both parties and perused
