Dilshad Ahmad Saifi vs State on 18 March, 2021

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Dilshad Ahmad Saifi vs State on 18 March, 2021

1. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of bail in the event of arrest in FIR No.42/2021 dated 03.02.2021, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354D, 509 and 341 IPC. The complainant and the accused are relatives. There are disputes between the parties and Civil Suits are pending between them.

2. In the instant FIR the complainant has stated that the accused, who is her uncle and who is an advocate, has been stalking her while she goes to office and has been abusing her constantly. It is stated in the FIR that on 03.02.2021 at about 7:30 AM when the complainant went to buy some groceries, the accused/petitioner herein threatened her and tore the shoulder part of her dress, BAIL APPLN. 473/2021 Page 1 of 5 went on abusing her and threatened her with dire consequences. On her complaint, FIR No.42/2021 dated 03.02.2021, was registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354D, 509 and 341 IPC. Apprehending arrest the petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Notice was issued by this Court on 11.02.2021. Status Report has been filed.

4. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would state that there are civil disputes between the parties. This FIR has been filed only for arm-twisting the petitioner to withdraw the Civil Suits filed by him and to humiliate him. It is stated that on the fateful day the petitioner had gone to paste a Court Notice for the purpose of service on the complainant. He states that when the petitioner saw the complainant he turned around and started running and a false complaint has been filed against the petitioner. He would also state that there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner.

5. In the Status Report it is stated that during the course of investigation the 'top' of the complainant which was torn by the petitioner has been seized. The supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has been recorded. It is also stated in the Status Report that the statement of independent eye-witnesses has been recorded who support the version of the complainant/victim. Video footage of the area has been recovered which shows that the complainant is seen running behind the accused/petitioner herein after the offence. It is stated in the Status Report that the petitioner is not joining investigation. The Status BAIL APPLN. 473/2021 Page 2 of 5 Report also records that the elder brother of the accused/petitioner was an employee of DDA and that there is a dispute between the parties regarding property.

6. Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned APP has reiterated the facts stated in the Status Report.

7. Mr. Vivek Sood, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the complainant would contend that prior to this instant complaint, the complainant was being abused by the accused/petitioner herein for which an FIR has been registered in Police Station, New Friends Colony. He contends that the petitioner has been regularly stalking and abusing the complainant/victim. He also states that the Police have recovered the 'top' of the complainant and there are other materials also which substantiate the version of the complainant and therefore, anticipatory bail ought not to be granted to the accused/petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sood, learned Senior Advocate relies on the judgment of Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, and prays that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

8. Heard Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vivek Sood, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the complainant and Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned APP for the State and perused the material on record.

9. The Status report reveals that the Police has recovered the torn 'top' of the complainant, the statement of independent witnesses have also been recorded. In view of the above, there is not necessity to take the petitioner into custody as no recovery has to be made. The parameters that are necessary for BAIL APPLN. 473/2021 Page 3 of 5 consideration for grant of bail are well settled which are as follows:

(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 charge;

(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;

(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.

Refer State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, (2001) 4 SCC 280; Gurcharan Singh v. State, (1978) 1 SCC

118.

10. The petitioner is accused of an offence punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354D, 509 and 341 IPC. The petitioner is an advocate having deep roots in the Society and there are minimal chances of petitioner fleeing or absconding if released on bail. As stated above, no recovery is required to be made from the petitioner and therefore the custody of the petitioner is not required. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

a) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/-

with one surety of the like amount who should be a relative of the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

BAIL APPLN. 473/2021 Page 4 of 5

b) The petitioner is directed to give his mobile number to the Investigating Officer and the petitioner is directed to keep his mobile number operations at all times.

c) The petitioner shall give his address to the IO.

d) The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called for.

e) The petitioner is warned not to threaten the witnesses.

f) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence.

11. The application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J MARCH 18, 2021 Rahul BAIL APPLN. 473/2021 Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders