Lalit Agarwal v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C moved by the petitioner for release on bail.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely roped in FIR No.231/13 dated 29.06.2013 lodged at P.S. Shalimar Bagh in pursuance to the complaint made by the complainant. The petitioner is a highly qualified person- a Chartered Accountant and was employed in a multi-national company as Senior Executive in Statutory Audit at Gurgaon (Haryana). He hails from a cultured, highly educated and socially connected family. His father is a practising income tax advocate. The eldest brother of the petitioner is a practising Chartered Accountant. Another brother is IT/Software Engineer.

3. It was further submitted that the complainant was known to the Bail Appln.1835/2013 Page 1of[9] 2013:DHC:6872 petitioner for last number of years as they were students of the same school and were residing in nearby vicinity. The complainant repeatedly asked the petitioner to marry her, which proposal was declined by the petitioner. On 01.04.2013, the complainant sent an SMS to the petitioner and on the same day i.e in the evening of 01.04.2013, she lodged a false and fabricated complaint against the petitioner, on the basis of which FIR No.143/2013 was lodged. The petitioner was, however, released on bail. The family of the petitioner remained busy in preparation of marriage of elder brother of the petitioner which was scheduled for 11.07.2013. Complaint, being fully aware of the same, mounted pressure upon the petitioner and his parents and lodged another complaint dated 29.06.2013 and the police arrested the petitioner on 01.07.2013. The petitioner had never harassed the complainant in any manner. He neither circulated/distributed any alleged pamphlets/letter at any place. The allegations are false and fabricated.

4. It was further submitted that the conduct of the complainant is not over board. She herself has been sending messages to the petitioner. The messages sent by her on 01.04.2013 speaks volumes of her conduct to allure the petitioner. The 10 never asked the family of the petitioner to hand over the mobile for verification of SMS, nevertheless, these messages were not disputed by the complainant before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi during the course ofarguments inbail application on 02.07.2013. Even Bail Appln.1835/2013 Page 2of[9] otherwise, in the charge-sheet filed in FIR No. 143/13, the investigation has revealed that the complainant has made 28 calls and sent 2161 SMS from her mobile to the petitioner between 01.01.2013 to 02.04.2013, which fact was never revealed by her in her complaint as well as in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. In the SMS dated 01.04.2013, she had expressed fear of her getting engaged somewhere else whereas during the hearing in bail application in FIR No.143/13 on 05.04.2013, she misled the Court by falsely stating that the petitioner tried to break her engagement. The story set up by the complainant is even otherwise false. A girl who allegedly suffers hostile incident at about

9.15 a.m in the broad day light would not go back to her residence to come back again in the bankto collect her ATM card and then lodge an FIR aftera lapse of more than 8-9 hours. There is unexplained time gap between the alleged incident and the lodging of the FIR. No incriminating document has been recovered by the police. No independent witness has been examined by the police. The alleged incident took place on a busy road in day light but there is no public witness to support the case of the complainant nor the complainant made any call to the police at 100 no. The medical report is an after thought. Initially the complainant reftised to get herself medically examined. Later on, after a gap of 28-30 hours, she got herself medically examined to fabricate the evidence. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that complainant and her family members are bent upon ruining the BailAppln.1835/2013 Page 3of[9] career of the petitioner, inasmuch as, due to registration of this case and his being in custody, he had to leave the job and he is not able to take up any assignment. Moreover, now a complaint has been made by the father of the complainant under Chartered Accountant's Act, 1949 for cancellation of licence of the petitioner. The charge sheet has already been submitted. The petitioner undertakes not to tamper with prosecution evidence or try to influence any prosecution witness. There is no chance of his absconding. He has roots in the society; he is in custody since 01.07.2013, as such he be released on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, 2011(13) Scale 107 where it was observed as under:- "In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earhest 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 preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be 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. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvictedpersons shouldbe held in custodypending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived ofhis liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses ifleft at liberty, save inthe most extraordinary Bail Appln.1835/2013 Page 4of[9] circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

6. Reliance was also placed on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, AIR 2011 SC 312 which was a case pertaining to grant of anticipatory bail. Reliance was also placed on Tajinder Singh Rana

V. State (Delhi Administration), 29(1986) DLT 339 which was also a case pertaining to Section 354,376,384,420,506 and 509 IPG and it was observed that before granting bail, the Magistrate must satisfy himself that the petitioner does not cause any obstruction to the complaint from appearing as a witness in the Court and deposing against him. If necessary, some restrictions on the movement of the petitioner must be imposed. It was also observed that opinion on merits of the case is unwarranted otherwise it is bound to prejudice in the trial either prosecution or defence of the petitioner. In Rita v. State, 2007(4) JCC 2984 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, keeping in view the young age of the petitioner who was 22 years of age, the petitioner was released on bail. Again in Aman Gam v. State, 2012(2) Crimes 147(Del), itwas observed that bail is not to be denied by way ofpunishment. Incarceration causes deprivation oflegal defence, which a Bail Appln.1835/2013 Page 5of[9] person who is at liberty can conduct in a much better manner. In Krishan Kumar v. State, 2007(4)JCC 3246, the materials did not support the case of prosecution. Accused was in custody for a long period, as such he was released on bail. Uma Shankar v. State, 45(1991) DLT 68 was a case u/s 302 IPC where incriminating circumstances were not very strong, as such accused was released on bail. Prem Dhanda v. State, 2009(4) JCC 2481 was also a case u/s 376/506/34 IPC wherein petitioner alleged false implication. Considering the fact that the MLC report found no injuries on the body of the victim; the investigation was complete, charge-sheet had been filed, as such bail was granted. Relying uponthese authorities, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is a young boy having roots in the society. Investigation is already complete. He is no longer required for the purpose of investigation. He undertakes to abide by any condition. He is in custody for the last about four months, as such he be released on bail.

7. The bail application is opposed by learned APP for the State as well as the complainant. It was submitted that on 29.06.2013, when the complainant was going to Corporation Bank for taking her ATM card, accused followed her in his car. She ignored him. Then he started honking the car. Despite that, she ignored him. Then he stopped his Maruti car in front of her and forced her to stop. Accused came out ofhis car and tried to drag her into his carbypulling herhand. When sheopposed, thenhetriedto threaten to throw Bail Appln.1835/2013 Page 6of[9] acid on her face. He threw typed pamphlets on her face in which it was written that he wanted to marry her and sought permission from her parents for that. It was submitted that the petitioner is following the complainant since 2004. In 2004, parents of the complainant made a complaint at P.S. Shalimar Bagh where the matter was compromised because the petitioner gave in writing that he will never follow the petitioner again. During interrogation, the accused disclosed that he is in love with the complainant since 2004 and wanted to marry her but she is denying because her parents are not agreeable for the marriage. Earlier also, he did the same act in April, 2013 for which FIR No. 14/2013 was registered. The accused has distributed some derogatory pamphlets having photographs of complainant. The complainant is very frightened and petitioner has created a sense of fear among the parents of the complainant also. Charge-sheet has already been submitted, as such accused is not entitled to be released on bail. 0 8. I have given my considerable thoughts to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

9. From a perusal of the complaint and the other materials which have come on record, it is apparent that the petitioner and complainant are known to each other since the year 2004. Itis the case ofpetitioner that complainant has been sending SMS tothe petitioner and on 01.04.2013 also she sent SMS in the morning but later on in the evening she lodged acomplaint against him. BailAppln.1835/2013 However, he was released on bail. It is alleged that in order to mount pressure upon him and his family members, she lodged another complaint dated 29.06.2013 which led to his arrest on 01.07.2013. During the course of arguments, the complainant denied having sent any sms to the petitioner. However, counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the charge-sheet submitted by the 10 of the case in FIR No.14/13 dated 02.04.2013 wherein it has been disclosed that during investigation, the call details of the complainant and the petitioner were taken which revealed that from the mobile phone of petitioner, 41 calls and 717 sms were sent whereas from the mobile phone of complainant, 28 callsand 2161 sms were sent. The incident of 29.06.2013 is alleged to have taken place in the morning at about 9.05 a.m. However, the complaint was made to the police on 19.35 hrs. Throwing of the pamphlets or its distribution among the shop-keepers have been denied by the petitioner. It is not the case of prosecution that any pamphlet has been recovered from the possession or at the instance of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, it will be a matter of trial as to whether the pamphlets were distributed by the petitioner or not. Undisputedly, charge-sheet has already been submitted, as such petitioner is no longer required for the purpose of investigation. He is in custody since 01.07.2013. For the apprehension raised by the prosecutionthat in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may repeat his acts, petitioner can be putto terms. Underthe circumstances, petitioner is Bail Appln.1835/2013 Page 8 of[9] admitted to bail, subject to following conditions

(i) his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate/Link Metropolitan Magistrate/Duty Metropolitan Magistrate;

(ii) he shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the

(iii) he shall not contact, coerce or intimidate any of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, the complainant nor will tamper with evidence; The application is accordingly disposed of Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master.