The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving serious allegations, even if custodial interrogation is not necessary, focusing on the prima facie case and nature of offences.

ORDER

1. The instant application under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR bearing no. 472/2022, registered at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 323/354/354A/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.02.2021 and 19.02.2021, the complainant `R' and her family members were attacked by the applicant and other accused persons including some local outsiders/goons. A preventive action was taken with regard to this incident against both the parties whereby the present applicant and brother of complainant were arrested in kalandra under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. at PS Ambedkar Nagar. Again on 17.03.2022, the applicant, who is the neighbour of complainant, attacked the complainant's brother along with four other persons and pressed his neck. Thereafter, applicant/accused along with his associates attacked the complainant and mother of the complainant. It is specifically alleged in the FIR that applicant and his other associates had dragged complainant `R' by her hair, pushed her to ground, forcibly lay over her and tried to disrobe her, and had also held the private parts of complainant and had outraged her modesty. After taking cognizance in the matter, the Court of CMM, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi vide order dated 06.08.2022, had directed the police officials to lodge an FIR and investigate the same, and accordingly the present FIR was registered.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner/applicant submits that the applicant is a government employee and belongs to Schedule Caste and the motive for framing him falsely is attributable to his caste. It is argued that the complainant and her family members have on numerous occasions hurled casteist slurs on applicant and his family, and no action has ever been taken on the complaints filed by the applicant and his family members qua the same.Learned counsel further submits that even as per the Status report, there is no CCTV footage of the alleged incident dated 17.03.2022 which could verify the allegations of the complainant. It is submitted that constant fights among the ladies of both the families is the main reason behind the false implication of the applicant in the present case. In support of her arguments, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273, (ii) Sushila Aggarwal and Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., (2020) 5 SCC 1.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, duly assisted by the Investigating officer and the learned counsel for complainant, opposes the present bail application stating that the FIR in present case was registered and investigation was taken up as per directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C of the Court. The statement of complainant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C which corroborates earlier version in the complaint. It is stated that the investigation is at initial stage and the allegations are serious in nature. It is stated that the CCTV footage dated 19.02.2021 was analyzed in the presence of husband of complainant where he clearly identified the applicant and his family members, but some other persons were also seen in the footage who could not be identified by him. It is further stated that custodial interrogation of accused/applicant is required to trace the remaining accused persons and also for the recovery of baseball bats/dandas as seen in the CCTV footage.

5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.

6. In the