Delhi High Court
Deepak Mishra vs The Nct Of Delhi on 30 July, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 24.07.2025
Pronounced on: 30.07.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 1754/2024
DEEPAK MISHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tahir Ali, Mr. Sajid Ansari,
Mr. Shahid Ahmad, Mr. Afreen
Khan, Mr. Divyanshu Jain,
Advs.
versus
THE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the
State with WSI Aarushi Rajput,
PS-Kirti Nagar.
Ms. Bahuli Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. The present application has been filed under section 439
CRP.C., seeking the grant of regular bail to the applicant in case FIR
bearing no. 297/2022 registered under sections 354(A)/ 354(D)/ 506/
376 IPC at PS Kirti Nagar.
Bail Appln. 1754/2024 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2025
18:51:01
2. As per allegations, a former acquaintance of the complainant,
had been harassing and threatening her for over two years through
calls, messages, and social media. Despite repeatedly blocking his
numbers, he continued to contact her using different phone numbers,
created fake social media profiles in her name, and shared her personal
photos with her friends and family. He even physically stalked her
outside her office and residence, issued threats to kill her, and coerced
her into maintaining contact under threat of public defamation. The
complainant approached police and filed multiple complaints,
ultimately leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 354A,
354D, and 506 IPC.
3. Later, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutix
revealed that the applicant had also established physical relationship
with her on false promise of marriage, resulting in pregnancy, which
he forcibly terminated by giving her medication. After she distanced
herself from him, the applicant resumed threats, including acid attack
threats and extortion for sexual favours. The applicant allegedly
circulated her intimate photos to relatives and continued his conduct
even after repeated police interventions. Based on her statement and
supporting evidence, the applicant was arrested, and chargesheet under
Sections 354A, 354D, 506, and 376 IPC was filed against him.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is an
inordinate delay of approximately four years in the registration of the
FIR, which casts doubt on the veracity of the allegations. It was
Bail Appln. 1754/2024 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2025
18:51:01
contended that the charge sheet has already been filed, the evidence of
the complainant has been completed, and no other public witness
remains to be examined. The applicant is stated to be the sole
breadwinner of his family, with his father currently bedridden due to
paralysis. It was further submitted that the complainant, who is the star
witness, has been examined and discharged, and has not supported the
prosecution case in material particulars.
5. It was also argued that the complainant made substantial
improvements in her version during the recording of her statement
under Section 164 CrPC, as no allegations of rape were made in her
initial complaint. The complainant herself admitted to being in
relationship with the applicant since 2018, and the allegation of rape
surfaced only later. Further, no investigation report has been placed on
record to conclusively establish that the mobile number in question
belongs to the applicant. It was lastly submitted that the applicant is
already on bail in previous criminal cases and has remained in custody
in the present case since 24.03.2022, i.e., for a period exceeding three
years.
6. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail application,
submitting that the applicant has prior criminal antecedents and is
involved in three other criminal cases. It is alleged that the applicant
established sexual relations with the complainant on false promise of
marriage. The complainant and the applicant were known to each
other and had worked together at a call center. After the complainant
Bail Appln. 1754/2024 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2025
18:51:01
left the job, the applicant reconnected with her, introduced her to his
relatives, and subsequently developed physical relations with her on
the pretext of marrying her.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail
application, submitting that the applicant deliberately concealed his
prior criminal antecedents, which he was duty-bound to disclose, as
held by the Supreme Court in Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan
2025 INSC 871. It was submitted that the present case pertains to a
prolonged period of harassment, threats, stalking, and sexual
exploitation of the complainant from 2018 to 2022. The applicant
allegedly threatened to throw acid on the complainant’s face, and on
one occasion, even arrived at her residence with a rod, which clearly
establishes a pattern of intimidating and violent conduct. Specific
instances of harassment and threats have been detailed in both the FIR
and the complainant’s statement under Section 164 CrPC. It was
further submitted that the complainant conceived during the course of
the relationship and was compelled to abort the pregnancy using
medication provided by the applicant.
8. It has been further submitted that the testimony of the
complainant has been concluded and her apprehension regarding
potential harm remains real and serious, especially if the applicant is
released on bail. It was pointed out, that the applicant, despite being
on bail in another criminal matter, continued to threaten and harass the
complainant. Furthermore, the applicant’s involvement in three other
Bail Appln. 1754/2024 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2025
18:51:01
criminal cases, including one where he was already on bail, reinforces
the argument that he is a habitual offender and not entitled to the
discretionary relief of bail. It was emphasized that bail should be
granted judiciously and not to an accused who has suppressed material
facts, including his criminal history. Reliance was again placed on the
decision in Kaushal Singh (supra) to state that suppression of
antecedents is a serious ground to deny bail.
9. The court has considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for both the parties and also has perused the
documents placed on record. Admittedly that there is a considerable
delay of nearly four years in the registration of the FIR. Such delay,
when the parties admittedly shared a long-standing personal
relationship, raises doubts as to the spontaneity and credibility of the
allegations. More pertinently, the charge sheet has already been filed,
and the complainant being the primary witness, has been examined
and discharged. No other material public witness remains to be
examined. In such circumstances, the risk of the applicant tampering
with evidence or influencing witnesses is substantially mitigated.
10. The Court also takes note of the material inconsistencies
between the complainant’s initial complaint and her subsequent
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., particularly regarding the
allegation of rape. The belated accusation of rape, in such
circumstance, is a fact of important consideration at the bail stage.
These are matters best tested at trial and do not warrant prolonged
Bail Appln. 1754/2024 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2025
18:51:01
incarceration at the pre-trial stage. Prima facie, the contradictions call
for a cautious judicial approach.
11. In the case of B.N. John v. State of U.P. &Anr., SLP (Crl.) No.
2184/2024, the Supreme Court held that the omission of crucial facts
in the FIR, which are later introduced without adequate explanation,
may indicate an afterthought and cast doubt on the credibility of the
prosecution’s case. Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India,
Criminal Appeal No. 3173/2024, the Supreme Court reiterated that the
rule of bail being the norm and jail the exception applies even in cases
involving grave allegations if statutory conditions are fulfilled. In the
present case, material inconsistencies, and apparent delay in
registration of FIR weakens the prosecution version. These
deficiencies justify the grant of Regular bail subject to appropriate
conditions.
12. Further, the applicant has already undergone more than three
years of custody since 24.03.2022, while the trial remains pending.
The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution, and continued detention, in the absence of compelling
reasons, would amount to punishment before conviction. Given that
the complainant has been examined and there is no real apprehension
of witness tampering, the continued incarceration of the applicant
cannot be justified. The Court must balance societal interest with
Bail Appln. 1754/2024 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2025
18:51:01
individual liberty. Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception, particularly
when trial is protracted.
13. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, the
Supreme Court laid down the settled parameters for consideration of
bail, emphasizing that the decision must rest on a cumulative
assessment of several factors. These include: (i) whether there exists a
prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has
committed the offence; (ii) the nature and gravity of the charge; (iii)
the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) the
likelihood of the accused absconding or fleeing if granted bail; (v) the
character, behaviour, means, position, and standing of the accused; (vi)
the probability of the offence being repeated; (vii) the reasonable
apprehension of witnesses being influenced or tampered with, and
(viii) the risk of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail. The Court
clarified that mere vague apprehensions about tampering with
evidence cannot suffice to deny bail unless there is material showing
that the accused, if at large, is likely to subvert justice or intimidate
witnesses. These principles were earlier affirmed in Prahlad Singh
Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2001) 4 SCC 280, and Gurcharan
Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (1978) 1 SCC 118, and further
reinforced in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7
SCC 528, where the Court reiterated that the liberty of an individual
must be balanced against the necessity of ensuring a fair trial and
safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process.
Bail Appln. 1754/2024 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2025
18:51:01
14. In the present case, the applicant and the complainant were
known to each other and the testimony of the complainant made in the
Trial Court is indicative enough that the complainant and the applicant
knew each other since 2018 and their relationship started subsequent
to that when she met the brother and sister-in-law of the applicant. The
allegations of sexual harassment were not initially mentioned in the
FIR and was subsequently added in the charge sheet after she made
her statements under section 164 CrPC. The complainant alleged that
despite being on bail in the other cases that he is involved in, he still
harassed and threatened the complainant. These allegations of rape is
mentioned in her testimony made in front of the Trial Court but are
silent in the FIR.
15. Although it is submitted that the applicant has previous criminal
antecedents, there is no cogent material placed on record to show that
he misused the liberty granted in those matters or that he has, since his
arrest in the present case, sought to intimidate or influence the
complainant. The prosecution has failed to establish that his release on
bail would pose any real threat to the administration of justice.
16. In view of the above factors namely, the prolonged judicial
custody, completion of examination of key prosecution witnesses,
contradictions in material statements, and absence of any
demonstrated risk of tampering, this Court is inclined to allow the
present application. Accordingly, the applicant is admitted to bail upon
Bail Appln. 1754/2024 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2025
18:51:01
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with a surety
of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the
conditions that he shall not contact the complainant or
threaten/intimidate the complainant, shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court, and shall appear
before the Trial Court on every date fixed. The application stands
disposed of.
17. Needless to state, any observations made in the present order
are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should
not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
July 30, 2025/na
Bail Appln. 1754/2024 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2025
18:51:01