Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Deepmala - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 2360 of 2019 & Crl.M.A. 9383 of 2019
Decided On : 09-09-2022
Bail is a rule, not a right; cancellation requires substantial evidence of wrongdoing or threat to witness integrity, which was not established in this case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 354, 506, 34 - Cancellation of bail application - Petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to certain respondents following allegations of assault and harassment. Court found no sufficient grounds for cancellation, emphasizing bail as a rule; significant evidence including CCTV footage was available but did not warrant bail cancellation at this stage. (Paras 15-24)
(B) Legal Principles - Nature of bail proceedings - Bail is a rule, jail an exception. Cancellation requires compelling circumstances or evidence of witness tampering. (Paras 15-16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged assault and harassment by several respondents, including one with a history of intimidation towards her family. The FIR included claims of physical and sexual assault, generating a threatening atmosphere. (Paras 5-18)
Findings of Court:
The court found that allegations made did not substantiate a call for bail cancellation, reiterating the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and recognizing the complexity of inter-family disputes. (Paras 15-24)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the accused posed a credible threat to the petitioner's safety, justifying bail revocation. (Paras 15-18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that generalized and vague claims are insufficient for bail cancellation; specific incidents must be substantiated with clear evidence, which was not met here. (Paras 15-24)
Result: Petition seeking cancellation of bail denied, but conditions imposed on respondent to protect petitioner remain in effect.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks cancellation of bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. facts of harassment against petitioner in fir. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 14) |
| 3. arguments regarding evidence and bail denial. (Para 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's findings on protection and bail. (Para 19 , 23) |
| 5. final order on petition and conditions. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT
Anu Malhotra, J.
1. The petitioner, vide the present petition seeks the setting aside of the order dated 16.03.2019 in Bail Application No.616/2019 of the Court of the learned ASJ, Tis Hazari Courts, (West) and seeks the cancellation of bail granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 9 in case FIR No.249/2015, PS Ranhola under Sections 323/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and has sought directions to the respondent No.1 to arrest and take the said respondent Nos.2 to 9 in custody in the said case.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and during the course of proceedings on 12.07.2019, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the prayer against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 7 to 9 was not pressed and that the prayer was confined to seeking the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.6 Chander Shekhar in relation to the said FIR and the petition is thus being treated only qua the said prayer.
3. The status report of the State dated 13.05.2019 submitted under signatures of Insp. Manmohan Singh, SHO/PS Ranhola is on the record.
4. The reply filed to the application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 9 dated 09.07.2019 which has been submitted to be treated as the reply of the respondent No.6 Chander Shekhar as submitted by the counsel for the said respondent on 12.07.2019 and the reply solely filed on behalf of the respondent No.6 Chander Shekhar to the said application supported with an affidavit dated 20.09.2019 are on the record.
5. The proceedings on the record as also reflected through the status report submitted by the State indicate that the FIR was registered on the complaint of the petitioner herein Deepmala Singh, D/o Sh. Chander Pal Singh, R/o House No. A-42, Brahmpuri Colony, Ranhola, New Delhi, wherein she alleged that on 08.04.15 at 9:00 AM, she along with her parents was going on a motorcycle and their motorcycle was stopped after some distance from their house, and Pawan and Deepak, initially arrayed as respondent Nos. 5 and 3 respectively to the petition against whom now no relief is sought by
the petitioner, hit a brick on the head of the father of the petitioner and started beating her and her mother, and molested her mother and also misbehaved with her, and Ranjan (arrayed as respondent No.2 to the petition initially filed), Pankej (arrayed as respondent No.4 to the petition initially filed), Chander Shekhar (arrayed as respondent No.6 to the petition initially filed against whom the relief is now sought), Gaurav (not arrayed to the petition), Renu (not arrayed to the petition), Priya (arrayed as respondent No.9 to the petition initially filed) and Anita (not arrayed to the petition), who were the other persons on the street surrounded them and the brother of Pawan and his mother hit a danda and brought a knife from their house and threatened to kill them, and Pawan, Ranjan, Gaurav, Deepak and Mangal started beating them and touched her inappropriately.
6. It has been submitted through the status report that after the completion of investigation, the charge sheet under Sections 323/354/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused Ranjan Choudhary, Deepak, Pankej, Smt. Anjali Devi @ Priya, Smt. Sushila Devi, Dhananjay Kumar, Pawan and Chander Shekhar was filed before the learned Trial Court, and that the matter is pending trial, and the charge against the accused persons was framed vide order dated 08.10.18 and the next date of hearing then was fixed for 22.05.19.
7. It has been submitted further through the status report that on 29.01.2019, the complainant filed an application
