A petitioner in judicial custody may be granted bail when allegations improve over time and family disputes are involved, but the trial's integrity must be safeguarded.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 439 and 482 - Bail application for regular bail in a case involving serious allegations including sexual assault filed against family members - Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.03.2021 - Allegations made by the prosecutrix improved in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and earlier complaints were found unsubstantiated - Bail granted in light of family disputes over property. (Paras 1, 8, 9)

(B) Judicial custody - While the court may lean towards granting bail when the petitioner has been in custody for an extended period, care must be taken to ensure the integrity of the trial process and protection of witnesses. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The bail application was filed by the petitioner, who is the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, following allegations of physical and sexual assault leading to FIR No. 70/2021. On investigation, prior disputes over property were noted, and the prosecutrix's credibility was questioned through her statements.

Findings of Court:
Considering the ongoing property disputes and the lapse of time in custody, the petitioner was admitted to bail under strict conditions, including non-contact with witnesses.

Issues: The court assessed whether the allegations against the petitioner were substantiated and the implications of family disputes in determining the nature of the accusations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the necessity to balance the seriousness of allegations with the duration of judicial custody, emphasizing that improvements in the prosecutrix's testimony required careful judicial consideration.

Result: Petition allowed; bail granted with conditions.

Table of Content
1. factual basis of the case against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contentions presented by the petitioner and the state. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis and observations on the case. (Para 7 , 8)
4. decision to grant bail with conditions. (Para 9)
5. conclusion and further orders by the court. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

BAIL APPLN. 1224/2021 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 807/2021 (for interim bail)

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case 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. After reaching the spot, they came to know that injured had already been shifted to DDU Hospital by PCR van. ASI reached DDU hospital. There injured prosecutix '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 brothers-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 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-in-laws 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-inlaw, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law 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 @ Sha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document