In a recent development in the Delhi High Court, Justice Saurabh Banerjee granted anticipatory bail to a government school teacher facing charges under Sections 328, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) emphasized that an accused, once granted bail, is expected not only to join the investigation but also to actively participate in it.
Brief Facts of the Case:
Vineet Surelia, the applicant, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR registered under Sections 328/376/506 of the IPC. The complainant alleged that she and the applicant were introduced through an online dating application, and met at the Central Secretariat Metro Station, after which she visited the applicant's house. There, she claimed to have been offered a soft beverage and food, subsequently feeling dizzy, during which the applicant allegedly engaged in acts of sexual misconduct. The complainant filed the FIR on 20.06.2023.
In response to the allegations, the applicant, represented by Mr Asutosh Lohia and Mr. Rohit Saraswat, contended that he had previously lodged a complaint about the theft of his mobile phone and valuables by the complainant, a week before the registration of the present FIR. The defence argued that the complainant's accusations were an afterthought and a counterblast to the applicant's earlier complaint. Furthermore, it was asserted that the complainant had made various transactions on e-commerce websites using the credit/debit card of the applicant.
Contentions of the Parties:
The applicant's counsel emphasized that no FIR was registered based on the applicant's complaint of theft, contrary to the directives of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. The defence further submitted that the applicant had actively cooperated with the police, joined the investigation, and had no prior criminal antecedents. Citing legal precedents such as Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and Ashok Kumar vs. Versha Ritu, the defense sought anticipatory bail, arguing against custodial interrogation and asserting the motivation behind the present FIR.
On the Respondent side, Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, the APP for the State, supported by SI Suruchi of PS. Fatehpur Beri and Ms. Aishwarya Rao, the advocate for the complainant, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The State contended that the investigation was in its initial stages, and the nature of the alleged offences was heinous. Concerns were raised about the possibility of the applicant obstructing the investigation and influencing witnesses. The prosecution also pointed out that the applicant, despite joining the investigation, did not fully cooperate or answer all questions posed during the process.
Observations by the Court:
The court's reasoning underscored the importance of active participation by an accused once granted bail. Justice Banerjee emphasized the tangible difference between merely "joining" and actively "participating" in an investigation. The court observed a concerning trend where accused individuals, despite court directives and imposed conditions, appeared to comply with investigation procedures only nominally, posing a potential hindrance to ongoing investigations.
In granting anticipatory bail to the applicant, the court considered various factors, including the applicant's profession as a government school teacher, his familial ties, and his clean antecedents. The court deemed it unlikely for the applicant to abscond, pointing out the absence of intimidation or threats by the applicant towards the complainant. The court acknowledged that the veracity of the allegations would be a matter for trial.
Importantly, the court articulated that the purpose of bail, and particularly anticipatory bail, would be defeated if the accused failed to actively cooperate and participate in the investigation. The court imposed conditions, including a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and active cooperation with the police, appearing before the Trial Court, and reporting to the local Police Station on a designated schedule.
The decision of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient material on record to grant the benefit of doubt to the applicant and emphasized the responsibility of the accused applicant to comprehend and adhere to the conditions imposed by the court while granting bail to the applicant.
Case Name: Vineet Surelia v. The State of NCT Of Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case No.: Bail Appln. No. 2310/2023
Advocates of the Appellant: Mr. Asutosh Lohia, Mr. Rohit Saraswat with Mr. Nitin Surelia, Advocates
Advocates of the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with SI Suruchi, PS. Fatehpur Beri Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Advocate for the victim
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
