IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while granting anticipatory bail, the court must consider the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the role of the applicant, lack of direct connection between the applicant and the alleged offence, the applicant's participation in the investigation, and the stage of proceedings before the Trial Court.

ORDER

1. This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.248/2023 dated 11.06.2023 registered under Sections 148/149/447/455 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi.

2. As per the FIR, around 25 persons gathered at the plot admeasuring about 500 sq. meters of the complainant, at Pandit Mohalla Chowk, Leela Chaudhary ka Makan, Mandawali, Madhu Vihar, Delhi alongwith bouncers, weapons, a JCB and TATA 407, at around 05:00 AM on 11.06.2023 and started digging up the land and installing a tin shed on the plot and threatened the complainant. Despite the complainant and the owner of the land trying to stop them, they continued and only on the police reaching the spot, most of the persons fled the scene.

3. During investigation and on the analysis of the CCTV footage, the present applicant was seen on the spot of the incident and was seen fleeing from the spot. Thereafter, notice under Section 41(A) CrPC was issued to the applicant and on the direction of this Court, the applicant participated in the investigation on 30.08.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he had no role to play in the commission of the alleged offence. He further submits that no offence under Section 455 IPC is made out as there was no house trespassing. He further submits that the applicant is a labourer who was only present on the place of incident to do the assigned work and had no other connection with the alleged offence, and thus his mere presence is not sufficient to implicate him in the present matter.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that the applicant has clean antecedents and has already participated in the investigation and shall continue to do so. He thus prays that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail.

6. Notice was issued and Status Report was called for.

7. Learned APP for the State, relying upon the Status Report, opposes grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant on the ground that the CCTV footage of the place of incident clearly shows that the applicant was present at the place of incident and played an active role in the commission of the alleged offence alongwith co-accused Inder, and also fled from the scene alongwith him. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as the investigation in the present case is at a very nascent stage and the interrogation of the applicant is required to apprehend the co-accused persons including Inder, who is still absconding. He lastly submits that considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the possibility of the applicant tampering with the evidence and threatening the witnesses, the applicant be not granted anticipatory bail.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State and has perused the documents on record.

9. While granting anticipatory bail to the applicant, no doubt this Court has to consider the nature and the gravity of the offence alleged, however, this Court is also to consider the role of the applicant, which is yet to be established, as presently, no connection has been established between the applicant and the alleged offence. Further, he has since joined the investigation after receiving the notice under Section 41(A) CrPC and in compliance of the directions passed by this Court.

10. Prima facie, as on date, the contents of the FIR are silent about the offence of house trespassing. There being no direct connection of the applicant with the place of the offence and even otherwise, his mere presence at that date and time of the offence, since he is a labourer, can very much be doubted.

11. The applicant has no prior antecedents and has since joined and participated in the investigation. As per the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant shall co