Imrankhan v. State

3. Mr. Vishesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subject FIR was registered against the petitioner after the delay of one day; that the co-accused persons Afsana, Jamil Khan, Nargis, Rukhsana, Afrozi, Tahira, Bilkis were released on Regular Bail; that no specific role has been assigned/shown against the petitioner; that accused has been implicated in this case only to give more gravity to Section 376(D) of IPG. It is further contended that BAIL APPLN 1299/2017 Page 2 of[6] o there is no chance of absconding or tampering with the Prosecution' evidence^ and thus Anticipatory Bail should be granted to him.

4. Per Contra, Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the state vehemently opposed the bail application and contended thatthepetitioner is not liable to be granted Anticipatory Bail as he has been actively involved in the commission of a serious offence. He further stated that the accused, may evade the process of law, threaten the complainant and may also tamper with the.evidences being collectedduring investigation

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record.

6. The MLC report No.132643 of Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital highlights physical assault on the prosecutrix. The report further reveals a bruise of size 4X[4] c.m. on lateral side of Right leg, abrasion of size of2X0.[5] c.m. on left hand, swelling on righttemporal region of size 2X[2] c.m., swelling over left hand and restricted rnovement. The prosecutrix in the FIR stated that "While I was standing on the street beside her house, a group of 30-35 persons consisting of rhen, women and children came towards rne and started using abusive language. They were carrying wooden sticks, swords and stones and after hurling the abusive language they started pelting stones at my house. After that when I was entering the house, Habib, Ali Hasan, Gulafam and Imran forcibly entered the house and all of them raped me one by one and fled from the house. On regaining consciousness I wore my clothes, and came outside the house and saw '-i. I BAILAPPLN. 1299/2017 Page 3 of[6] that the group of people were still pelting stones at the house." On a conjoint reading ofthe FIR and the MLC Report, a prima facie case against the petitioner can be made out.

7. Co-accused Tahira, Afsana, Jamil Khan, Nargis, Rukhsana, Afrozi, Bilkis, were granted bail, as being v/omen, the provision under Section 376(D) IPC is not attracted against them, thus this argument does not come to the aid ofthe appelhnt.

8. The allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature. The investigation is still in its embryonic stage, and thus the chance ofthe petitioner escaping the procedure oflaw, tampering with the evidence or thi-eatening the complainant and witnesses exists.

9. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004 (7) SCC 528), the Apex court has laid down the principles of granting or refusing bail and held as under; "The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter ofcourse. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail i. was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid ofsuch reasons would sufferfrom non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: BAILAPPLN. 1299/2017 Page 4 of[6] n a. The nature of accusation and the severity ofpunishment in case ofconviction and the nature ofsupporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension ofthreat to the complainant. c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge."

10. This principle was further reiterated in State of U.P. VS Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8SCC 21 wherein the Apex Court held as under: "It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature andgravity of the charge; (Hi) severity of the punishment in the event ofconviction; (iv) danger ofaccused absconding orfleeing ifreleased on bail;

(v) character, behaviour,' means, position and standing of the accused;-, (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi 2001 (4) ^ SCC 280 andGurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179).

(ii) While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, ifthe accused is ofsuch character that his mere presence at large Vvould intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his BAIL APPLN 1299/2017 ^^9^ 5of.[6]

9.

10. If. liberty to subvertjustice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. "• Keeping in view the principle laid by the Apex Court and the aforementioned facts and circumstances as well as taking into consideration the specific role attributed to the appellant/accused and the gravity of the offences alleged, this court does not deem it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore the present petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merit ofthe case. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of SANGIT / SEHGAL, J OCTOBER 10,2017 gr// BAILAPPLN. 1299/2017 Page 6 of[6]