Delhi High Court
Sunil Jha vs State on 19 January, 2023
Neutral Citation Number is 2023/DHC/000523
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2104/2019
SUNIL JHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.K. Gupta and Mr. H.R. Jha,
Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuvender Verma, APP for
State.
SI Mukesh Kumar, P.S. Vasant Kunj
(North).
Ms. Astha, Advocate (DHCLSC) for
Prosecutrix.
% Date of Decision: 19.01.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 124/2019 under Section 376/328 IPC lodged
at P.S. North Vasant Kunj.
2. At the outset, it has been stated that the charge sheet has already been
filed and the Petitioner is appearing before the learned Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner was granted
interim protection by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2019 and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:24.01.2023
17:26:57
Neutral Citation Number is 2023/DHC/000523
same is continuing thereafter. He submits that the Petitioner has never
misused the liberty granted to him.
4. IO also states that the Petitioner had joined the investigation as and
when directed by the IO.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the charge sheet
has already been filed and the Petitioner was joining the investigation,
the interim protection granted to him may be confirmed. Learned
counsel submits that even after filing of the charge sheet, this Court
can grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. To buttress this
contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court dated 08.10.2003 passed in Appeal (Crl.) 1250/2003
titled Bharat Chaudhary and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr.
6. Learned counsel for the Complainant submits that this is a serious
case and bail may not be granted. He submits that the Petitioner has
been threatening the complainant/prosecutrix. Learned APP for the
State has also opposed the grant of bail.
7. I have considered the submissions of all the parties.
8. The basic rule of criminal jurisprudence is bail and not jail. The
Supreme Court and this Court have time and again held that the courts
must enforce this principle in practice. It is a settled law that denial of
bail amounts to deprivations of personal liberty.
9. The Supreme Court in Siddharam Satilingappa Mhetre vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2001) 1 SCC 694, while considering a matter relating
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:24.01.2023
17:26:57
Neutral Citation Number is 2023/DHC/000523
to the grant of anticipatory bail and after exhaustively analysing the
rights under Article 21 inter alia held that great ignominy,
humiliation, and disgrace is attached to an arrest. It was further held
that an arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the
accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire
community
10. In Nathu Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 6 SCC 64, the Supreme Court
inter alia held that grant or rejection of an application under Section
438 Cr.P.C. has a direct bearing on the fundamental right to life and
liberty of an individual. Thus, while considering the grant of bail this
court has to look into the facts and circumstances of the case so as to
ensure that there is no infringement of fundamental rights. Further, it
was also inter alia held that Section 438 Cr.P.C. needs to be read
liberally, and considering its beneficial nature, the courts must not
read in limitations or restrictions that the legislature have not
explicitly provided for.
11. I have gone through the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix against the
Petitioner. The facts, as stated in the status report, indicate that the
prosecutrix was taken by the accused to some hotel, where she was
asked to take a drink by the accused. She has alleged that subsequent
to consuming the drink she felt dizzy and thereafter the prosecutrix
was raped. The status report also indicates that the alleged offence
was committed on 25.05.2018 and the present FIR was lodged on
06.06.2019. A perusal of the status report also indicates that there is
no other involvement of the accused. There is nothing on the record to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:24.01.2023
17:26:57
Neutral Citation Number is 2023/DHC/000523
suggest that the Petitioner has threatened the prosecutrix in any
manner.
12. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner had been joining the
investigation as and when directed by the IO and has not misused the
interim order previously granted by this Court. Taking into account
the totality of facts and circumstances and the fact that the charge
sheet has already been filed and the Petitioner had been joining the
investigation as and when directed by the IO, the Petitioner, is
admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigation
Officer/SHO subject to the following conditions:
a) The Petitioner shall not contact or threaten the prosecutrix in
any manner;
b) The Petitioner shall provide his mobile number(s) to the
Investigating Officer and keep it operational at all times; and
c) In case of a change of residential address and/or mobile
number, the petitioner shall intimate the same to the Investigating
Officer/ Court concerned by way of an affidavit.
13. The present bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
JANUARY 19, 2023/kks
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:24.01.2023
17:26:57
