A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad of Delhi High Court has in the case of Ishu v. The State the Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to a woman who allegedly threatened a man of filing a rape case against him if he failed to meet her demand of Rs 2 lakhs. It also commendably observed that this was a case of 'Honey Trap.'
Factual Background
It must be also apprised here that the was dealing with the anticipatory bail filed by a woman accused for offences punishable under Section 328 (Causing hurt by means of poison etc with intent to commit an offence), 389 (Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion) and 34 (common intention) IPC.
Contentions of the Petitioner
Mr. Viraj Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the fact that the petitioner was trying to prepare her defence and therefore the fact that she did not join the investigation does not mean that the petitioner was absconding.
He states that the petitioner had gone to the Police Station and her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. was recorded in the complaint filed by her against the complainant on allegations of rape. He states that the mere ipse dixit in the Status Report that the petitioner is absconding does not hold water.
He further states that the Police have not taken any steps/action against the petitioner by filing applications before the concerned Court to declare the petitioner a proclaimed offender. He further states that other than taking voice samples there is no necessity for arresting the petitioner and therefore the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail.
Contentions of Respondent
The learned APP contends that the petitioner was not available at her residence when the Police went there and the petitioner had not joined the investigation. She also states that the FIR was lodged on 10.04.2021 and the Police did not rush to the court by moving an application without taking all efforts to ensure that the accused against whom allegations are made joins the investigation.
She states that the present case is one of honey traps and the fact that the petitioner gave her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. would have no relevance because the first step in a case of rape is to record the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She further states that the moment the complainant filed the instant FIR the petitioner has gone into hiding and she has surfaced only when the co-accused, was granted bail by this Court.
She further states that the investigation is at a very nascent stage, qua the petitioner, the petitioner is alleged of an offence under Section 328 IPC for which the petitioner can be punished with up to ten years of imprisonment. She states that the conduct of the petitioner shows that she can abscond and therefore the petitioner ought not to be granted anticipatory bail.”
Contentions of Complainant
The learned counsel for the complainant supports the case of the prosecution and states that the petitioner and the co-accused have constantly threatened the complainant and have demanded money. He states that it is a case of honey trap and anticipatory bail ought not to be given to the petitioner.
Reasoning and the Decision of the Court
The Court observed that,
"The FIR shows that this is a case of a honey trap. The allegation against the petitioner is that she has threatened the complainant and has demanded money. Material on record shows that only when the complainant filed the instant FIR, the petitioner filed her complaint under Section 376 IPC against the complainant herein. The investigation is at a very nascent stage. The petitioner is accused of an offence under Section 328 IPC which permits for imprisonment up to four years."
It was further stated by the Court that the parameters that are necessary for consideration for the grant of anticipatory bail are well settled. The Court while granting or rejecting to grant bail has to take into account several facts such as:
"a. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused ;
b. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
c. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
d. The possibility of the accused’s repeating similar or other offences;
e. The court has also to take into account reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.”
The Court opined that it is well settled that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely:
"a) no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and;
b) there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.”
The Court noted that,
"the charge-sheet qua the petitioner is yet to be filed. The petitioner’s voice sample has to be taken and the investigation has also to be conducted as to whether there are any other cases in which the petitioner is involved and as stated earlier the investigation is at a nascent stage. The petitioner is accused of an offence under Section 328 IPC, which is a serious offence. There is some justification in the contention of the learned APP that the conduct of the petitioner does show that there is a likelihood of her fleeing from justice and that she would not cooperate with the investigation. The probability of the petitioner and the co-accused, Nikhil Bhattal, extending threats to the complainant cannot be ruled out at this stage.”
The Court concluded that this case wasn't a fit case where the petitioner should be granted bail in the event of arrest. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Details
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Name: Ishu v. The State
Case Number: Bail Appln. 2837/ 2021
Delivered On: August 16, 2021
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
