Delhi High Court
Danish Khan vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) And Anr. on 10 May, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023:DHC:3210
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 10.04.2023
% Pronounced on : 10.05.2023
+ BAIL APPLN. 3674/2022
FAHEEM AHMED ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Parul Agarwal, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
with SI Sanyukta, P.S.Laxmi Nagar.
Mr. Ankit Mehta, Mr. Varun Singh
and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for
R-2.
+ BAIL APPLN. 3675/2022
DANISH KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Parul Agarwal, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
with SI Sanyukta, P.S.Laxmi Nagar.
Mr. Ankit Mehta, Mr. Varun Singh
and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for
R-2.
Bail Appln. 3674-75/2022 Page 1 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:10.05.2023
16:59:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023:DHC:3210
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read
with Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail
in case FIR No. 554/2022 under Sections 323/354/354B/376/34 IPC
registered at Police Station Laxmi Nagar.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
learned APP for the State duly assisted by the counsel for the respondent
no. 2 and perused the status report filed by the state.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the story narrated in
the FIR is false and frivolous. He further submitted that there is a family
dispute and various civil suits with regard to property are pending. He
further submitted that, in order to grab the share of the present petitioners,
the respondent no. 2 at the instance of her husband lodged the present FIR
against the petitioners. He further submitted that there are inconsistencies
in the statements of the respondent no.2 as initially the FIR was registered
under Sections 323/354/354B IPC but the allegations under Section 376
IPC were added only after the further improvements made by the
respondent no. 2 in her Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
which clearly shows that they are the afterthought. Learned counsel for
the petitioners further submitted that custodial interrogation of the
petitioners is not required and no recovery is to be affected from them. He
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:10.05.2023
16:59:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023:DHC:3210
further submitted that the petitioners are ready to join the investigation as
and when required by the IO and there are no chances of the petitioners'
absconding or tempering with the evidences.
4. On the other hand, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel
for the respondent no. 2 while vehemently opposing the present bail
applications submitted that the allegations against the present petitioners
are grave and serious in nature. Learned APP further submitted that the
respondent no. 2 had properly reported in her complaint to the police
detailing about the allegations made by her in the Statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. and the complaint was also forwarded to the concerned office
of DCP.
5. In the instant case, a bare perusal of the FIR and the status report
shows that on 09.09.2022, a PCR call was made by the complainant and
therein only allegations of molestation were leveled against the
petitioners. Further, on 10.09.2022, another PCR call was made in which
it was alleged that the brothers-in-law (petitioners herein) made a phone
call to the complainant and threatened her that they are coming along with
their friends to rape her. Later, on the same day, at 02:04 P.M. another
PCR call was made in which the same allegations as above were leveled.
It was only on 26.09.2022, when the written complaint was forwarded to
the concerned DCP and ACP, the allegations of rape were leveled against
the present petitioners. Furthermore, in the MLC dated 09.09.2022 as
well, no signs of rape were found and observations made by the Doctor
from Hedgewar Hospital were only for physical assault.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:10.05.2023
16:59:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023:DHC:3210
6. On 19.10.2022 another PCR call was made by the complainant
wherein again allegations of molestation against the present petitioners
were made.
7. A summary of the judgments made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has led this Court to believe that when considering the current petitions, it
is important to examine not only the severity of the accusations made, but
also the conditions under which the petitioners may be released on bail.
Specifically, the Court must ensure that the Applicant will not attempt to
evade the law, and will instead cooperate with the investigation.
Additionally, the Applicant must not try to influence witnesses or tamper
with evidence during the trial, and must actively participate in the
proceedings.
8. The prosecution does not claim that there is a likelihood of the
petitioner refusing to participate in further investigation or that he needs
to be interrogated while in custody. Moreover, the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that no recovery is to be affected from
the petitioners has not been opposed by the prosecution. However, the
complainant has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners,
citing the serious nature of the allegations, but the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various judgments time and again has held that seriousness of the
offence cannot be the only basis for denying anticipatory bail to the
applicant. The provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. have emerged from the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which pertains to an individual's
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:10.05.2023
16:59:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023:DHC:3210
liberty. In addition, the fundamental principle of criminal law is that a
person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
9. Therefore, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, the bail
applications are allowed and in the event of arrest, petitioners be released
on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each
with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting
Officer/SHO concerned.
10. With the above observations, the applications stand disposed of
accordingly.
11. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any
opinion on the merits of the case.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
MAY 10, 2023/p
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:10.05.2023
16:59:12
