The court maintained that bail must be denied in cases of heinous offenses due to potential witness intimidation and emphasized the need for expeditious trials.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The petitioner sought bail in a case of serious allegations related to sexual offenses, including rape, committed against the prosecutrix who is his daughter-in-law. The FIR was lodged after a delay of two months, which the petitioner argued was indicative of falsehood. The court emphasized the severity of the charges and the potential for witness intimidation if bail were granted. (Paras 1, 4, 8, 11)

(B) Parameters for granting bail - The court reiterated that bail is a discretionary order, guided by factors such as the nature of the offence, severity of punishment, and possibility of tampering with witnesses. The higher the heinousness of the crime, the greater the likelihood of bail being denied. (Paras 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of multiple serious sexual offenses against his daughter-in-law, argued for bail claiming the delay in filing the FIR undermines its credibility, alleging it arose from a matrimonial dispute. Charge-sheet was filed after the FIR. The prosecutrix detailed repeated assaults but hesitated to report due to fear. (Paras 2a, 4)

Findings of Court:
Bail application is dismissed, highlighting serious implications of the offense and the risk of intimidation if released. The trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings. (Paras 11, 12)

Issues: The court addressed the delay in lodging the FIR, the nature of allegations against the petitioner, and the potential for altering the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the nature of accusations, particularly those involving sexual violence, alongside the risk of influencing witnesses, are critical factors in deciding bail applications. The need for expeditious trial was underscored.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in FIR No.354/2020 dated 01.08.2020, registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar for offences under Sections 323 /376/506/313/377/354/34 IPC.

2. Facts, in brief, leading to the present petition are as under--

a) The instant FIR was lodged on the statement of the prosecutrix wherein she stated that she got married to one Asheem Raja S/o Shri Ahshan Ali (the petitioner herein) R/o H.No.219/7, Kardampuri, Delhi on 23.03.2019 according to Muslim Rites and Customs. It is stated that after sometime her in-laws started to harass her but she remained silent. It is stated that her mother-in-law is no more. She stated that her husband used to beat her and he had subjected her to unnatural sex several times. It is stated that the prosecutrix came to know that her husband was having an affair with some other woman and therefore, she tried to make him understand, but he did not listen to her. It is stated that thereafter she informed the petitioner herein, about her husband. It is stated that the petitioner assured her that he would talk to her husband. It is stated that the husband of the prosecutrix remained out of house for several days and only the prosecutrix and the petitioner used to reside in the house and he would behave in a very pleasant manner with her. It is stated that on 24.06.2020 the petitioner asked her to make tea. It is stated that when she went to the room of the petitioner to give him tea, the petitioner herein caught hold of her hand, and pulled her towards him and raped her. It is stated that the petitioner threatened her with dire consequences if she told anyone about the incident. It is stated that out of fear the prosecutrix could not muster the courage to tell her parents about the incident. It is stated that the petitioner raped her on 2-3 occasions. It is stated that the prosecutrix became tensed. It is stated that one day when the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix enquired as to why she was sad, she revealed the entire story to him. It is stated that the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix told her that he would talk to the petitioner and assured her that everything would be fine. It is stated that after that day the behaviour of her brother-in-law changed and that on several occasions, her brother-in-law tried to touch the prosecutrix inappropriately. It is stated that at last the prosecutrix told her parents everything and asked them to come and take her along. On the complaint of the prosecutrix, FIR No.354/2020 dated 01.08.2020, was registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar for offences under Sections 323 /376 IPC.

b) The petitioner was arrested on 01.08.2020.

c) Charge-sheet was filed on 24.09.2020

d) The petitioner filed an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The same was dismissed by the learned ASJ, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts on 08.06.2021.

e) Thereafter the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant bail application.

3. Heard Mr. Gaurav Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State and Mr. Yogesh Gaur, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record.

4. Mr. Gaurav Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is a 65 years old man having ailments. He states that charge-sheet has been filed. He further states that the instant case arises out of a matrimonial dispute where the prosecutrix has tried to implicate everybody in the family. He further states that the incident took place on 24.06.2020 but the FIR was lodged only on 01.08.2020. He states that no explanation has been given by the prosecutrix for the delay. He states that the prosecutrix has made allegations against the petitioner who is the father-in-law and also against the brother-in-law. He states that in fact the prosecutrix has refused to have internal examination. He states that it