The totality of the circumstances deserves to be seen before a person is granted or denied anticipatory bail: Delhi High Court

VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI STATE OF NCT OF DELHI BAIL APPLN. 1162 2021 Date of Decision : 23.04.2021 Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog Sr. Adv. with Setu Niket Ms Mazumdar Ms. Avani Kaushal Ms. Salonee Keshwani Advocates Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya APP for the State with SI Anil Kumar PS. Greater Ms. Tanessa Puri Advocate HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR RAJNISH BHATNAGAR J.1 SCC 694 has laid down that the Court should be loath to reject the grant of anticipatory bail in as much as it impinges on the personal liberty of a person. Meaning thereby unless and until there is an imminent and a great imperative to have a custodial interrogation of an accused the anticipatory bail does not deserve to be denied In the instant case there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner and his wife who is the mother of the complainant are involved in various litigations amongst each other. The mobile phone has already been recovered and the petitioner has already joined the investigation on 10.02.2021 11.02.2021 12.02.2021 15.02 2021 16.02 2021 and 17.02.2021. As per the status report filed by the state in compliance of the order dated 09.02.2021 of Sh. Gaurav Rao Ld. ASJ Saket Court New Delhi the verification of the complaints given by the petitioner has also been done and it has been found that BAIL APPLN. 1162 2021 applicant petitioner has filed 3 complaints at P.S. Greater Kailash wherein he has mentioned about his apprehension of being arrayed in a false case of molestation by his step daughter on the instructions of his wife. As per the status report all the information with regard to the mobile phones being used by the petitioner has been supplied to the 16. As already observed hereinabove the petitioner has joined the investigation on numerous occasions. There is a history of litigations in regard to the control of business between the petitioner and the mother of the complainant. Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner has also laid much emphasis on the delay in lodging the FIR and contended that there is no plausible explanation for the delay and the same is fatal to the case of the complainant In the instant case the alleged offence took place on 18.05.2020 and on the same very day according to the complainant she had informed her mother about the incident and also discussed with her but the complaint was only lodged on 29.12.2020 In between this period from the record it is evident that the petitioner and the mother of the complainant have been litigating 17. No doubt the delay in lodging the FIR is not always fatal and it depends upon the facts of each case. The reasons given by the counsel for the complainant for the delay is that the complainant never wanted to spoil the matrimonial home of her mother and secondly her fiance BAIL APPLN. 1162 2021 would have left her if he had come to know about the conduct of the petitioner. Though the complainant has tried to explain the delay but the same can be looked into at the time of trial and as to what would be the fate of such delay would be seen at that particular stage 18. The perusal of the FIR shows that no day date month and time has been given by the petitioner with regard to the incident prior to 18.05.2020. It is also not understood as to why she had not even once made any complaint to her mother and brother about the misconduct and sexual harassment being meted out by the petitioner and when at one stage according to the complainant her mother even fell unconscious after drinking green tea which the petitioner brought for the complainant but was drank by the mother of the complainant but then also the complainant failed to tell her mother and brother about the conduct of the petitioner as already observed In the instant case the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail on account of the fact that no recovery of any articles is to be effected inasmuch as this is a case where all the articles have been seized by the police as per the Status Report and he had joined the investigation at least six times 20. There are two more considerations which are being taken into account for grant of anticipatory bail. Firstly the petitioner is having roots in the society and no apprehension has been shown by the BAIL APPLN. 1162 2021 prosecution that there is a chance of fleeing away of the petitioner from the process of law In so far as the contention of the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threatening the witnesses are concerned a generalize statement has been made by the counsel for the complainant and nothing has been shown to the Court in the form of any cogent and primfacie evidence which could show that he has threatened anybody or tried to tamper with the evidence It has also been argued by the Ld. APP that NBWs were the petitioner as he has not been joining the investigation but thereafter as per the status report the petitioner has joined the investigation. Merely because the NBWs were issued against the petitioner cannot be a sufficient ground for denying the grant of anticipatory bail if it is otherwise made out. Every reasonable person who has approached the Court for grant of anticipatory bail will keep away from the investigation for some time so that his bail application may not become infructuous 23. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case I am inclined to admit the petitioner to anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50 000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO SHO concerned with the condition BAIL APPLN. 1162 2021 that he shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten any of the witnesses. The bail application is disposed of accordingly 24. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of this case RAJNISH BHATNAGAR J APRIL 23 2021 BAIL APPLN. 1162 2021 Page 1

Summary: Nothing has been shown to the Court in the form of any cogent and primfacie evidence which could show that he has threatened anybody or tried to tamper with the evidence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail. This was said in the case of Ameet Khandelwal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi [BAIL APPLN. 1162/2021] by Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar in the High Court of Delhi The facts of the case are that a bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 376/506/509  IPC. It was filed after Court of Sessions dismissed his anticipatory bail application on 01.04.2021, holding that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case subsequent to being regularly threatened implications in false cases. It is further contended that the FIR are highly improbable and cannot be believed as no dates, day, time has been mentioned about the incidents. It is further submitted that delay in filing FIR after 7 months of the alleged incident under a well planned strategy to extort money from the petitioner and to take revenge from the petitioner for the cases filed by him for redressal of bonafide grievances as the owner of the company. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is further contended that the accused/petitioner may not be available for the trial as he has mentioned different addresses in the bail petition and there are chances that he may flee from the justice. As regard the delay in lodging the FIR, it is submitted that the complainant remained silent to save the matrimonial trauma of her mother and the marriage of the complainant was fixed during that period and if the fiance of the  complainant would have come to know about the incident, he would have broken the relationship The Court referred to the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] wherein it was said that “Court should be loath to reject the grant of anticipatory bail in as much as it impinges on the personal liberty of a person. Meaning thereby, unless and until there is an imminent and a great imperative to have a custodial interrogation of an accused, the anticipatory bail does not deserve to be denied”.