Anticipatory bail may be granted when custodial interrogation is not warranted, especially in cases involving family disputes and serious allegations.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 438 and 482 - Anticipatory bail - Allegations of physical and sexual assault by family members - The court found that the FIR contained serious charges but noted that the petitioners had cooperated in the investigation and that custodial interrogation was not necessary. (Paras 1-9)

(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that anticipatory bail could be granted when custodial interrogation is not required and if the accused are ready to join the investigation. (Paras 9)

Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix alleged that after her husband's death, her in-laws threatened and physically assaulted her; she reported the incidents to police, leading to the registration of the FIR. (Paras 2-3, 5)

Findings of Court:
The petitioners joined the investigation, and the court found no requirement for custodial interrogation, thus granting bail subject to conditions. (Paras 8-9)

Issues: The key issue was whether the allegations justified preventing the petitioners' anticipatory bail request in light of family disputes over property. (Paras 5-8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in matters where the complainant had already provided testimony and raised issues of family conflict, custodial interrogation was unnecessary. (Paras 9)

Result: Anticipatory bail granted.

Table of Content
1. details of the alleged incidents and complaints. (Para 2 , 3)
2. progress of the investigation and arrest. (Para 4)
3. arguments and claims by the petitioners and state. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's analysis of statements and evidence. (Para 7 , 8)
5. court's order on bail and conditions. (Para 9)
6. final disposal of the petitions. (Para 10 , 11)

ORDER

(VIA VIDEO-CONFERENCING)

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. By way of this common order, I shall dispose of the petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 70/2021 under Sections 376 /354/323/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Hari Nagar.

2. In brief, the facts as per the case of the prosecution are that on 26.02.2021, two PCR calls were received at PS Hari Nagar vide DD Nos.30A & 36A regarding quarrel at WZ-47, Tihar Village, and the same were marked to ASI Niranjan. ASI Niranjan along with HC Jitender No. 1838/W reached at WZ-249, G-47, Tihar Village, Delhi. There it came to know that injured had already been shifted to DDU Hospital by PCR van. ASI reached DDU hospital. There injured prosecutrix 'R' was found admitted vide MLC No. 80/21. Doctor mentioned A/H/O physical assault and sexual assault in MLC. The injured was shifted to Safderjung hospital. In Safderjung hospital statement of prosecutix 'R' was recorded in the presence of her father Nemi Chand. She stated that she runs a shop of small articles at WZ 249, G-47, Tihar Village, Delhi. On 20.11.2020, her husband expired due to illness. Her husband was owner of the house in which she is residing. Her mother in law and brother in law used to say that now she has nothing in the house and asked her to leave the house with her child, aged about seven years. It is alleged that a court case is pending between them regarding the house and the Court has granted stay. It is alleged that after returning to home, her mother-in-law Nirmala Devi, brother-in-law-Anil @ Shanti and another brother-in-law-Mukesh@ Bunty told her that there was no need to be more happy and threatened to kill her. It is alleged that on 25.02.2021, at about 10.30 AM, while prosecutrix was going downward from 3rd floor, in the middle of stairs, Mukesh @ Bunty met her and asked her whether she was going to open the shop and threatened to kill her. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix was cleaning the shop, her mother-in-law came inside and started throwing articles of her shop and told her to get out with her son. Thereafter, arguments started between them and her mother-in-law started beating her. It is alleged that in the meanwhile, her brother-in-law Anil @ Shanty came inside the shop and hit his hand on her breast and pressed her breast 2-3 times. It is alleged that he hit her with some pointed object and her mother in law was asking to kill her. Her mother-in-law and brother-inlaws kept beating her. Thereafter, her brother-in-law Anil fled from the spot on the direction of her mother-in-law and she told the prosecutrix that she is 70 years old and nothing could happen to her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix called police and she was shifted to DDU Hospital.

3. On the statement of prosecutix 'R', FIR No. 70/21, dated. 26.02.2021, under Sections 354 /323/506/34 IPC was registered at PS Hari Nagar. During investigation, on 02.03.2021 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosectrix was recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court. In her statement, in addition to the facts as stated in the FIR, prosecutrix stated that on 20.11.2020, her husband expired. She further stated in the statement that after the death of her husband, her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-laws threw her belongings out of the house. It is alleged that on 05.12.2020, she had lodged a complaint against them at Police Station Hari Nagar. It is alleged that somehow they came to know about the complaint and when she reached at home, her brothers-in-law, namely, Anil @ Shanty

Click Here to Read the rest of this document