Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Amit Malik - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Application No. 1400 of 2021, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6628 of 2021
Decided On : 08-11-2021
BAIL - Offences under Section 354, 354D, 506 IPC - Section 438 Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for bail in the event of arrest in FIR No. 80/2021 for offences under Section 354, 354D, 506 IPC. The complainant alleged that the petitioner molested, blackmailed, and threatened her regarding a flat dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner and the complainant were known to each other, and the petitioner had deposited a significant sum of money into the complainant's account. The court also noted the delay in filing the FIR and the petitioner's prior complaint against the complainant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant, the delay in filing the FIR, and the antecedents of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the parameters for granting anticipatory bail as laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the need to carefully evaluate the accusations, antecedents of the accused, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest, imposing specific conditions to ensure the petitioner's compliance and to protect the complainant.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C has been filed for grant of bail in the event of arrest in FIR No. 80/2021 dated 06.04.2021 registered at Police Station Maidan Garhi for offences under Section 354, 354D, 506 IPC.
2. The facts leading to the instant case are as under :
a) It is stated that on 06.04.2021, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on a complaint given by the complainant/prosecutrix stating that she met the petitioner through a common friend in the month of May, 2020 and became friends.
b) It is stated 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. It is stated that the petitioner offered her to buy the said flat.
c) It is stated that 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. It is stated that at the moment, the petitioner got to know that he will not be getting the flat, he started blackmailing and torturing the prosecutrix.
d) It is stated that in October, 2020 the petitioner asked the prosecutrix to accompany him to kalka mandir and picked her from her residence. It is stated that as soon as the prosecutrix sat in the car, the petitioner locked her inside the car and took her phone away.
e) It is stated that the petitioner recklessly drove the car and molested her. It is stated that he stopped near her home and continue to molest her, pressed her breast, twisted her arms, strangulated her neck and threatened her either to give her flat to him or get the bank papers signed. He also wanted her to sign blank papers and stated that if she did not sign the blank papers he will spoil her son's life and started abusing her.
f) It is stated that in October, 2020 the petitioner came to her house in Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar and started pushing the prosecutrix in front of her son and she called her brother. It is stated that for three hours he was there and they had a heated quarrel. She stated that the petitioner was forcing her to sign the papers and transfer the flat in his name.
g) It is stated that on 31st December, 2020 the prosecutrix, her friend and her husband went to celebrate new year at Jim Corbett. It is stated that the petitioner followed her and she requested the petitioner not to create any drama. It is stated that the petitioner took an obscene video of the prosecutrix and started blackmailing her to fulfil his sexual desires.
h) It is stated that the petitioner installed GPS in her car and followed her at all locations. It is also stated that he has been stalking her on social media by making false accounts. It is further stated that the petitioner molested her on a number of occasions.
i) On the basis of the said complaint, the instant FIR was registered against the petitioner.
j) 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.
k) The petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant petition for grant of bail in the event of arrest in FIR No. 80/2021 dated 06.04.2021 registered at Police Station Maidan Garhi for offences under Section 354, 354D, 506 IPC.
4. Heard Mr. Lalit Valecha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State and Mr. Sanjiv Dagar, learned counsel for the complainant/prosecutrix.
5. Mr. Lalit Valecha, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was a friend of the prosecutrix and had given her a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards earnest money against the total consideration of Rs.32,00,000/- in respect of Om Sai Ram Apartments in Ward No.8, Mehrauli, New Delhi. It is stated that out of Rs.32,00,000/- a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- was transferred to the complainant/prosecutrix through bank and a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was given
The main legal point established is the careful consideration of the nature of accusations, antecedents of the accused, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses in granting anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 should be granted sparingly, especially in serious offences, considering potential risks and the necessity for thorough investigation.
Rape case – Gran of Bail - Consent of prosecutrix – Issues to be decided at Trial – No criminal antecedents of accused
Bail can be granted when the allegations do not involve direct participation in serious crimes, and the accused demonstrates willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
The seriousness of the offence, cooperation with the investigation, and the need for custodial interrogation when the accused does not provide necessary information.
Petitioner is not accused of committing rape and the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
The legal principle established is that consent must involve active and reasoned deliberation, and a false promise of marriage must be given in bad faith with no intention of being adhered to at the ....
Anticipatory bail denied due to the serious nature of allegations involving a prostitution ring, necessitating custodial interrogation for a thorough investigation.
Grant of anticipatory bail based on lack of direct connection to the crime, collection of exhibits sent for analysis, and absence of necessity for custodial interrogation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
