SI Anju v. Krishan Kumar

1. The Petitioner/State has approached this Court challenging the Orders dated 03.06.2021 and 26.07.2021 passed by the Ld. learned Additional Session Judge, Special Court, FTC, North District, Rohini, Delhi granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent/accused in FIR No.20/2021 dated 13.01.2021, registered at Police Station Narela Industrial Area for offences punishable under Sections 376/354/354(B)/506/509/323/34 IPC.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the a complaint was received on 13.01.2021 by the victim/complainant stating that she resides with her family at Plot bearing No.A-126, Metro Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. It is stated that the said plot is in the name of her father. It is stated that the said plot was mortgaged by the father of the victim/complainant for a sum of Rs.20,000/- to one Ghani Ram Meena, who is the Tauji of the victim/complainant. It is stated that the father of the victim/complainant passed away. It is stated that on 11.01.2021 at about 08:30 PM i.e., two days before registration of the FIR, the victim/complainant went to check the aforesaid plot and saw that Omkar, Amar, Krishan, Aarshi and Pintu were getting some construction work on the said plot. It is stated that when the victim/complainant questioned the construction work on the aforesaid plot, she was beaten with dandas and thrashed by the said persons. It is also stated that the victim/complainant was made to lie on the ground, her clothes were torn and one Krishan Kumar, who is the Respondent/Accused herein, inserted his finger in the genital area (vagina) of the victim/complainant. It is stated that, thereafter, the Omkar and Krishan Kumar brought a Pyjama for the victim/complainant and dressed her back. It is stated that the victim/complainant tried to escape and entered a neighbourhood slum but all the said persons pulled out the victim/complainant and threatened the victim/complainant that they would kill her. On the said complaint, the present FIR was registered.

3. The Respondent/Accused filed an application before the Trial Court for grant of bail in the event of arrest and vide Order dated 03.06.2021, the Respondent/Accused was granted interim protection by the Trial Court. On 03.06.2021, the Ld. APP for the State stated before the Trial Court that he was unable to address the arguments for want of CCTV footage and also for want of orders of interim protection granted to other co-accused persons in the FIR. The Trial Court found that this Court vide Order dated 01.03.2021 had granted interim protection to the co-accused Pintu Ram. The Trial Court also found that another co-acused - Ahmad Raja @ Arsi had been granted interim protection by the Court of Ld. ASJ. It was submitted before the Ld. Trial Court that there is a cross FIR being No.21/2021 registered under Sections 452/323/34 IPC which was registered on the very same day when the present FIR was registered by the victim/complainant with an ulterior motive to extort the plot by putting false allegations and making pressure on the Respondent/Accused. The Ld. Trial Court, in view of the fact that the chargesheet against the two co-accused persons has been filed and they have been granted interim protection by the Hon'ble Courts and in light of the scenario of COVID-19 pandemic which was then at its highest peak, granted interim protection from arrest to the Respondent/Accused vide Order dated 03.06.2021 and, thereafter, vide Order dated 26.07.2021, the Respondent/Accused was granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court. The said Orders dated 03.06.2021 and 26.07.2021 have been challenged by the Petitioner/State in the present petition.

4. Material on record indicates that the other co-accused persons i.e., Amar Singh and Omkar, have been granted regular bail by the Trial Court vide Orders dated 26.07.2021 and 28.07.2021 respectively.

5. Learned APP appearing for the Petitioner/State submits that the Respondent/Accused ought not to have been granted anticipatory bail. He states that the Petitioner is clearly seen in the CCTV footage and, therefore, bail granted to the Respondent/Accused on the basis parity with the coaccused persons i.e., Amar Singh and Omkar cannot be sustained. He states that the Petitioner is not entitled to parity with the co-accused persons i.e., Amar Singh and Omkar, as Amar Singh and Omkar were not seen in the CCTV Footage while the Accused/Respondent herein is clearly seen in the CCTV footage. He further states that the two co-accused persons i.e., Amar Singh and Omkar, have been granted regular bail whereas the Respondent/Accused has been granted anticipatory bail. He states that the Petitioner is alleged of inserting his finger in the genital area (vagina) of the victim/complainant and, therefore, looking at the seriousness of offence, anticipatory bail ought not to have been granted to the Respondent/Accused by the Trial Court.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Accused states that the Respondent/Accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He states that there is a property dispute going on between the parties and a cross-FIR has been filed on 13.01.2021 against the family of the victim/complainant and on the very same day, the present FIR has been registered by the victim/complainant against the Respondent/Accused. He states that chargesheet has been filed and, therefore, applying law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. State of Bihar, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Impugned Orders passed by the Trial Court do not warrant any interference. He, therefore, states that the bail granted to the Respondent/Accused should not be cancelled.

7. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Parties and perused the material on record.

8. The Impugned Orders have been passed on 03.06.2021 and 26.07.2021 by the Trial Court granting interim protection from arrest and granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent/Accused. Two co-accused persons i.e., Pintu Ram and Ahmad Raja @ Arsi have been granted interim protection. The other two co-accused persons i.e., Amar Singh and Omkar, have been granted regular bail by the Trial Court.

9. This Court has perused the CCTV footage which shows that a few persons are seen along with the victim/complainant albeit dragging the victim/complainant. The fact that the Respondent/Accused is seen in the CCTV footage albeit dragging the victim/complainant is alone not sufficient to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent/Accused. There is a delay of two days in filing the present FIR from the date of incident i.e., 11.01.2021. There is also a fact that a cross-FIR was filed on the very same day. Chargesheet has been filed. Conditions have been imposed by the Trial Court while granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent/Accused.

10. Parameters of cancelling bail already granted to the accused persons have been laid down by the Apex Court in a number of Judgments. In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 the Apex Court has observed as under: "4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."

11. Similarly, the Apex Court in CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan,

"23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that there are cross-FIRs, there is a delay of two days in filing the FIR from the date of incident, the COVID-19 pandemic was at its highest peak at the time when the anticipatory bail was granted to the Respondent/Accused by the Trial Court and chargesheet has been filed and looking at the time that has lapsed, this Court is of the view that sufficient reasons have been given by the Trial Court for granting bail in the event of arrest to the Respondent/Accused and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the Impugned Orders passed by the Trial Court.

13. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2024