Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 4706

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
N – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 1531 of 2023
Decided On : 12-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Bilal Anwar Khan, Ms. Anshu Kapoor and Mr. Varun Bhati, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the State.

Cancellation of bail should not be done in a mechanical manner and should only be considered in the presence of very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, as outlined by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Headnote:
Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 354D/376/506 IPC - 439(2) - 482 - 30, 31, 32 - The court discussed the law regarding cancellation of bail and highlighted the grounds for cancellation of bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The court emphasized that cancellation of bail should not be done in a mechanical manner and should only be considered in the presence of very cogent and overwhelming circumstances. It also outlined illustrative circumstances where bail can be cancelled, such as when the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused, ignores the past criminal record and conduct of the accused, or grants bail on untenable grounds.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant had developed a close relationship with the accused during her previous employment. She alleged that the accused coerced her into engaging in sexual acts, captured her private images without consent, and threatened to misuse the images. The accused was granted anticipatory bail, and the petitioner sought its cancellation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused had cooperated with the investigation, the intimate material in his possession had been seized, and no complaint had been lodged against him after the grant of bail. It concluded that there was no strong material warranting the cancellation of bail and declined to interfere with the personal liberty of the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the anticipatory bail granted to the accused should be cancelled based on the serious allegations against him and the potential threat to the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the grounds for cancellation of bail as outlined by the Hon'ble Apex Court, emphasizing the need for very cogent and overwhelming circumstances to warrant cancellation of bail.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition, directing the accused not to post, use, or misuse the intimate pictures of the complainant and allowing the complainant to approach the learned Trial Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail if the accused misused such material.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the applicant/complainant for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused Arvind Dalakoti vide order dated 24.02.2023 in case FIR bearing no. 606/2022, registered at Police Station Laxmi Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 354D/376/506 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC') and setting aside the said order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant `N' had developed professional interactions with the accused during her previous employment and subsequently, the accused had enticed the complainant to work with him at his company located in Sonipat, Haryana, where she had developed a close relationship with the accused. It was alleged that the accused had manipulated and coerced her into engaging in sexual intercourse with him while also capturing her private images without consent. It was alleged that accused had then resorted to threats, using the private pictures as leverage to coerce her into engaging in further sexual acts. Moreover, he had divulged this sensitive information to her colleagues. It was further alleged that on 09.08.2021, the accused had taken her to his residence located in Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where he had reassured her that he would delete her private pictures, but he had again sexually assaulted. The complainant initially had filed a complaint at PS Laxmi Nagar, Delhi on 30.05.2022 but the same had been withdrawn. The complainant had again filed another complaint on 07.06.2022 seeking to reopen her previous complaint. Finally, the present FIR was registered on 23.12.2022 on the basis of complaint submitted by the complainant on 22.12.2022. During the course of investigation, the complainant was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she supported her earlier version.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the anticipatory bail was granted to the accused without applying judicial mind at the initial stage of investigation, without considering that allegations against the accused are serious in nature and that his being released on bail will adversely affect the trial. It is also argued that the accused has been intimidating and threatening the petitioner and is also in possession of her intimate photographs, and she is under threat that those photographs can be misused or posted on social media platforms. It is further submitted that the accused had threatened and defamed the petitioner/complainant and other witnesses immediately after he had got interim protection from the learned Trial Court.

4. Learned APP for the State submits that pursuant to grant of anticipatory bail, the accused had joined investigation and handed over the mobile phone and laptop, as per the direction of learned Trial Court, to the IO. It is further submitted that the said mobile phone and laptop were seized and sent to FSL for further examination and after completion of investigation, chargesheet has been filed against the accused.

5. The arguments have been heard on behalf of both sides and material on record has been perused.

6. Since the petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused, it will be relevant to discuss the law regarding cancellation of bail. In this regard, this Court takes note of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 8 SCC 559 wherein in was observed as under:

"...30. This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order dire