Delhi High Court: The anticipatory bail applications were filed under Sections 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in an FIR registered under Sections 336, 436 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Jyoti Singh, J., opined that in the present case, accused persons had joined investigation, as and when it was directed by the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) and there were no allegations of tampering with evidence or threatening any person associated with the case. Further, accused persons had clean antecedents and had not been involved in any unlawful activity prior to the alleged offences. Thus, the Court granted anticipatory bail to accused persons, and stated that they should be released on bail, subject to furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Background
In the present case, on 31-03-2023, a PCR call was received by a complainant, who complained that his neighbour had lit fire in his factory premises. Subsequently, the team reached the spot where they met complainant who stated that his neighbour and his brother-in-law, had lit fire in his godown. Further, complainant handed over pen drive, DVR and mobile phone, which according to him contained a CCTV footage capturing the incident. CCTV footage showed that all the accused persons were at the spot and were lighting fire on the wall of complainant’s factory.
Thus, on the basis of complaint, FIR was registered.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that accused persons had rightly contended that that disclosure statements in the absence of any other corroborative material or evidence and extra-judicial confessions were a weak piece of evidence. CCTV footage was retrieved from the spot but there were allegations of tampering with the same and it was also urged by the applicants that the faces of the persons in the CCTV footage were not visible due to darkness. However, the Court opined that the authenticity of the CCTV footage and the presence of the applicants at the scene of crime and/or committing the crime, would be a matter of trial.
Further regarding non-cooperation on the part of accused persons, that they were not aiding in recovery of the scooty, visible in the CCTV footage, the Court observed that the during investigation, applicants had given their respective stands and denied having travelled on the scooty. The Court opined that the accused persons could not be compelled to give self-incriminating answers. Further, in the present case, accused persons had joined investigation, as and when it was directed by the IO and there were no allegations of tampering with evidence or threatening any person associated with the case. Further, accused persons had clean antecedents and had not been involved in any unlawful activity prior to the alleged offences.
Thus, the Court granted anticipatory bail to accused persons, and stated that accused persons should be released on bail, subject to furnishing personal bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Further, the Court stated that accused persons should not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial Court and they should also furnish their respective mobile numbers to the IO and keep the same active at all times and should not change the mobile numbers without prior intimation to the IO and the Trial Court. Accused persons should appear before the Trial Court on the dates of hearing and/or for any further investigation, as and when directed by the IO and should not directly or indirectly, indulge in any illegal activity or make any inducement, threat or promise to any person associated with the case including complainant. Further, the Court stated that accused persons should furnish their current residential address to the IO and intimate any change in the same to the IO and the trial court by way of an affidavit.
[Rajan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1897, Order dated 04-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: M.L. Yadav, Advocate; Shiv Chopra, Aadhyaa Khanna, Siddharth Arora and Rishab Nangia, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with SI Lalbahadur, PS: Mohan Garden.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
