Delhi High Court - Orders
Jagtar vs State Of Delhi Nct & Anr on 12 October, 2023
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1497/2023
JAGTAR ..... Applicant
Through: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Mr. Rishikesh
Kumar and Mr.Arpit Tripathi,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF DELHI NCT & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for
the State with SI Surbhi, P.S.
Paschim Vihar.
Ms. Aishwarya Rao and Ms. Mansi
Rao, Advocates for prosecutrix with
prosecutrix
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 12.10.2023
1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") seeking regular bail in FIR No.706/2022 dated 10.02.2023 registered under Sections 354/354C/376D/377/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") at P.S. Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
2. As per FIR, the victim/complainant was raped and obscene videos were recorded by the applicant, who happens to be the brother-in-law (Jija) of mother-in-law (Saas) of the victim. It is also alleged that the BAIL APPLN. 1497/2023 Page 1 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2023 at 14:49:28 husband of the victim and her mother-in-law also recorded her obscene videos and threatened her of circulating the same.
3. The applicant was arrested on 03.09.2022 and a charge-sheet was thereafter filed on 23.11.2022 under Section(s) 354/376D/34 of the IPC qua the applicant herein. Thus, the trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the co-accused who is charged of the same offences has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.03.2023 of the learned ASJ-(SFTC)- 01, Tis Hazari Courts in SC No.788/2022 titled State v. Jagtar & Ors. He further draws attention of the Court to the fact that the prosecutrix had submitted before the learned Trial Court that she does not have any objection to the grant of anticipatory bail to the co-accused. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel claimed parity with the co-accused persons who were granted anticipatory bail to seek regular bail for the applicant. Lastly, he submits that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 03.09.2022
5. Notice was issued and Status Report was called for.
6. Nominal Roll was also called for. As per the Nominal Roll, the applicant has been in judicial custody for more than 1 year. Further, his conduct has been satisfactory, however, he is involved in another FIR registered under Section 409 IPC.
7. Learned APP appearing for the State, in light of the heinousness of the offence opposes the application and submits that the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence and the cross-examination of the victim is yet to be conducted. Moreover, the applicant could be a flight risk.
BAIL APPLN. 1497/2023 Page 2 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2023 at 14:49:28
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned APP appearing for the State, and perused the documents on record.
9. The trial is at the stage of evidence. The fact that the prosecutrix had no objection to the grant of anticipatory bail to her husband and brother-in-law (Dewar) is, in the opinion of this Court, not a ground for the applicant to claim parity or grant of bail by way of the present application. Also, that there is another FIR pending against the applicant in addition to registration of the present FIR is also not a factor granting bail to the applicant at this stage, particularly, in view of the offences involved herein. Even otherwise, as the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail, this Court has no option but to deny the same.
11. Furthermore, while granting bail to an accused like the applicant herein, this Court is to consider the factors laid down and further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Amaramani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; and Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 8 SCC 559 as under:-
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 accusation;
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;
BAIL APPLN. 1497/2023 Page 3 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2023 at 14:49:28 vi. likelihood of the offence being repeated; vii. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and viii. danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.
12. As such, considering the factual matrix involved and the settled position of law as also keeping in mind the precautions to be taken while granting bail to any applicant involved in heinous offence(s) like the present one, in the opinion of this Court, the present is not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage.
13. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
14. Needless to mention, observations made, if any, on the merits of the matter are purely for the purposes of adjudicating the present application and shall not be construed as expressions on the merits of the matter.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J OCTOBER 12, 2023/So BAIL APPLN. 1497/2023 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2023 at 14:49:29