SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 1210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Ishu - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Application No. 2837 of 2021
Decided On : 16-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
Viraj Datar, Advocate, Krishanu Adhikary, Advocate, Kusum Dhalla, Advocate, Rahul Chandlok, Advocate

The court balanced the need for fair investigation and prevention of harassment in deciding on the grant of anticipatory bail.

Headnote:

Bail - Offences under Sections 328, 389 and 34 IPC - [HONEY TRAP] - [Sections 328, 389 and 34 IPC] - The court discussed the nature and gravity of the accusation, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, and the balance between fair investigation and prevention of harassment. The petitioner's conduct indicated a likelihood of fleeing from justice and extending threats to the complainant. The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR No.118/2021 for offences under Sections 328, 389 and 34 IPC. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and co-accused threatened and demanded money from him, leading to the filing of the FIR.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's conduct indicated a likelihood of fleeing from justice and extending threats to the complainant. It concluded that this was not a fit case for granting bail in the event of arrest.

Issues: The issues revolved around the nature and gravity of the accusation, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, and the balance between fair investigation and prevention of harassment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the factors of fair investigation and prevention of harassment, considering the seriousness of the offence and the likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from justice.

Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed along with the pending applications.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in the event of arrest in FIR No.118/2021 dated 10.04.2021 registered at Police Station South Rohini for offences punishable under Sections 328, 389 and 34 IPC.

2. The brief facts leading to this bail application are as under:

    a) A complaint was filed by one Rishab Jain (Complainant) stating that he has a business of marble and tiles and he runs a Shop at B-81, Marble market, Mangolpur Kalan, opposite Indian Bank, New Delhi. He stated that on 01.04.2021, one Nikhil Bhattal, whom the complainant knew, came to his shop and asked for some good quality marble stones/tiles for renovation of his residence and he insisted that the complainant must visit his house. It is stated that when the complainant visited the house of the said Nikhil Bhattal, he introduced the complainant to his girlfriend, lshu @ Bobby (the petitioner herein). It is stated that the petitioner lives with Nikhil Bhattal. It is stated that the petitioner offered a soft drink to the complainant. It is stated that after consuming the drink the complainant started feeling dizzy. It is stated that the said Nikhil Bhattal asked the complainant to take rest and he left the room. It is stated that after Nikhil Bhattal left the room the petitioner herein came close to the complainant and started rubbing his head and thereafter the complainant became unconscious. It is stated that when the complainant regained consciousness he was shocked to see that the petitioner was rubbing his private part. It is stated that the complainant went outside the room. It is stated that when Nikhil Bhattal came back, the complainant narrated the incident to him. It is stated that on hearing about the incident Nikhil Bhattal got furious and broke the phone of his girlfriend. It is stated in the complaint that thereafter demands for a mobile phone, a TV and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash were made and the complainant was threatened that if demands are not met the petitioner herein would file a case of rape against the complainant. It is stated that after the incident the complainant was called more than 25 times for payment of money. The complainant also produced various voice recordings to substantiate that the petitioner and Nikhil Bhattal are demanding money from the complainant and threatening him that if their demands are not met a case of rape would be filed against the complainant. FIR No.118/2021 dated 10.04.2021 was registered at Police Station South Rohini for offences punishable under Sections 328, 389 and 34 IPC.

      b) It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner and Nikhil Bhattal also filed a complaint against the complainant herein, being FIR No.119/2021, dated 10.04.2021, for offences under sections 376/506 IPC.

        c) The co-accused Nikhil Bhattal was arrested on 11.04.2021. He has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2021 in BAIL APPLN. 1520/2021.

          d) The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail, being Bail application No.2776/2021, before the learned Sessions Judge, North West District, Rohini Courts, which was rejected vide order dated 30.07.2021.

            e) The petitioner has, thereafter, approached this Court by filing the instant bail application.

            3. Notice was issued on 04.08.2021. Status Report has been filed. The Status Report indicates that in the voice recording the petitioner herein is also heard demanding a TV and a Mobile phone from the complainant. It is also mentioned in the Status Report that the petitioner is being heard threatening the complainant of dire consequences. It is stated in the Status Report that the petitioner has no permanent address and her mobile phone is also switched off. It is stated in the Status Report that despite making all efforts the Police has not been able to arrest find the petitioner and she is evading arrest.

            4. Heard Mr. Viraj Datar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Chandlok, learne

                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                          1
                          2
                          3
                          4
                          5
                          6
                          7
                          8
                          9
                          10
                          11
                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                          supreme today icon
                          logo-black

                          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

                          qr

                          Scan Me!

                          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                          whatsapp-icon Back to top