Delhi High Court – Orders
Vijay@Tola vs The Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 18 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 4845/2024 (disposed of case)
VIJAY@TOLA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Nagar, Mr. Vijay Verma,
Mr. Om Pal, Advocates
versus
THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State with SI Deepak Sahu, PS
Prahladpur
Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Advocate
(Amicus Curaie) with Mr. Amar
Bajpaya, Advocate for Complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 18.01.2025
1. The matter has been listed today pursuant to office noting pointing out
an error in the name on the police station in order dated 15 th January, 2025.
The said order has been perused. Accordingly, the order dated 15th January,
2025 shall now read as under:
“1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, seeking grant of regular bail in
FIR No. 202/2022 dated 02nd May, 2022, registered at P.S. Pul Prahaladpur,
for the offence under Sections 363/354/356/379/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
BAIL APPLN. 4845/2024 Page 1 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/01/2025 at 21:14:43
2. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:
2.1 On 2nd May, 2022, the Prosecutrix met the Applicant, her relative,
whom she had earlier met in Rajasthan. The Prosecutrix had agreed to help
the Applicant purchase clothes, during which the Applicant was
accompanied by co-accused Golu. The Applicant then snatched her phone.
Along with Golu, the Applicant began misbehaving with her, forcing her to
travel to Rajasthan by bus. The Applicant grabbed the Prosecutrix’s hand
and forced her to board the bus. When she refused, the Applicant reportedly
threw her phone, causing it to break.
2.2 Subsequently, a biker, later identified as co-accused Akbar, offered
the Prosecutrix a ride around 5:00 PM. He continued to drive her around on
his bike until approximately 9:00 PM. He molested the Prosecutrix by
making inappropriate physical contact and climbing onto her, thereby
violating her personal dignity and safety.
3. In light of the above, counsel for the Applicant contends that the
Applicant is a young individual, aged 20 years, who was arrested on 27 th
November, 2011, and has spent over two years in custody. It is further
emphasized that the Applicant has no prior criminal history. The counsel
highlights that the primary allegations in this case are directed towards co-
accused Akbar, who has already been granted bail by the Additional
Sessions Judge through an order dated 13th December, 2022. Additionally,
co-accused Golu has also been released on bail. In view of these
circumstances, the counsel argues that the Applicant should be granted bail
as well.
BAIL APPLN. 4845/2024 Page 2 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/01/2025 at 21:14:43
4. Ms. Nidhi Mohan Prashar was appointed as Amicus Curiae, as the
prosecutrix was not appearing. She acknowledges that the Applicant has
been in custody for a duration of over two years; she argues that while the
Prosecutrix has not made direct allegations against the Applicant in her
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
nonetheless, there are specific charges against him, as detailed in the
chargesheet.
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties. At
the outset, it is essential to clarify that the purpose of pre-trial detention is
not punitive in nature. Undertrial prisoners should not be kept in custody for
an indefinite period, and as a general principle, bail is the rule while jail is
the exception. In this regard, the Supreme Court, in its judgment in Sanjay
Chandra v. CBI,1 made the following observations:
“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the
earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the
accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object
of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty
must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that
an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts
owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment
begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent
until duly tried and duly found guilty.
xxx
27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and
committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail
is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution.
xxx
43. There are seventeen accused persons. Statements of witnesses run
to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is
placed by the prosecution, are voluminous. The trial may take
considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in
jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had1
(2012) 1 SCC 40.
BAIL APPLN. 4845/2024 Page 3 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/01/2025 at 21:14:44
they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that the
accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the
offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of
alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not
deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no
serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on
bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do
not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too,
after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-
sheet.
xxx
46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with
economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the
fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy
of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that
the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the
charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New
Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary
for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are
entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in
order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee & Anr.,2 delineated the following factors that Court must
consider while deciding an application for bail:
“i. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had committed the offence;
ii. nature and gravity of the accusation;
iii. severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
iv. danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
v. character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused
in the society;
vi. likelihood of the offence being repeated;
vii. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
viii. danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.”
7. The Applicant has been in custody for more than two years. It is
important to note that, according to the statement of the Prosecutrix, the
primary allegations are directed towards co-accused Akbar, who has already
2
(2010) 14 SCC 496.
BAIL APPLN. 4845/2024 Page 4 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/01/2025 at 21:14:44
been granted bail by the Trial Court. The Applicant is a young individual,
aged 20 years, with no prior criminal history. Subjecting a young person of
this age, with no criminal antecedents, to prolonged pre-trial detention
would likely cause more harm than benefit. Further, such detention, in
circumstances where the role attributed to the Applicant appears less
significant than that of co-accused, who has been granted bail, raises
concerns regarding proportionality.
8. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the Prosecutrix has already
been examined by the Trial Court, and the trial is nearing its conclusion.
Therefore, there is no reasonable apprehension that the Applicant, if granted
bail, would threaten witnesses or interfere with any further investigation.
Additionally, it is not alleged that the Applicant poses a flight risk. Any
concerns raised by the Prosecution in this regard can be addressed by
imposing appropriate conditions.
9. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the present bail
application is allowed. It is accordingly directed that the Applicant shall be
released on regular bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of INR
50,000/- along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:
9.1 The Applicant shall not travel to Delhi, unless the same is required for
the purpose of the trail or attending court proceedings and contacting his
counsel. In any event, the Applicant shall not enter within a radius of at least
5 KM from the locality where the victim resides.
9.2 The Applicant will not leave the country without prior permission of
the Trail Court.
9.3 The Applicant shall provide permanent address to the Trial Court. The
Applicant shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit and to the IOBAIL APPLN. 4845/2024 Page 5 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/01/2025 at 21:14:44
regarding any change in his residential address.
9.4 The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when the
matter is taken up for hearing.
9.5 The Applicant shall not contact the victim and tamper with the
evidence in any manner whatsoever.
10. Needless to state, any observations concerning the merits of the case
are solely for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11. A copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent via email for
information and necessary compliance.
12. With the foregoing directions, the present application is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of as infructuous.”
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JANUARY 18, 2025
nk
BAIL APPLN. 4845/2024 Page 6 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/01/2025 at 21:14:44
[ad_1]
Source link