Once granted bail, accused expected to join and participate in investigation: Delhi High Court

The court made the observation after the counsel appearing for the Delhi police disputed the man’s claim that he had joined and was participating in the investigation. 

Justice Banerjee said an accused can always take the benefit of Articles 20(3) (a person won’t be compelled to be a witness against himself) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution of India. The court, however, said the purpose of granting anticipatory bail to an accused would be defeated and cause a hindrance to the ongoing investigation if they don’t participate in it. 

“The applicant is expected to show high sensitivity, diligence and understanding, not only the purpose but also the consequences of any non-compliance of the conditions imposed by the court while granting bail,” the court said. 

The court observed that the man had clean antecedents with no past history of involvement in any complaint/ FIR of any kind and that there were hardly any chances of him tampering with the evidence and/ or influencing the witnesses. 

“Thus, not granting him bail at this stage can lead to ignominy, humiliation and disgrace of the applicant in society. Also, the gravity of the offence and/or the severity of the punishment involved, in case of conviction of the applicant, under the aforesaid circumstances, can be overlooked by this court,” the court said, adding that there were enough materials to grant the man a benefit of the doubt. 

The court went on to grant anticipatory bail to the man, stating that in case he is arrested he will be released on bail, subject to him furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with one surety of the like amount of one friend/ family member having no criminal antecedents, further subject to certain conditions. 

The court had noted that in the present case, the man and the complainant woman encountered each other through an online app and, after that, were constantly messaging each other. The court drew the inference that they were known to each other. 

Also, the man had previously lodged a complaint reporting the theft of his mobile phone and other valuable items by the complainant woman from his house. However, the court said its veracity was a matter of trial.

Records further revealed that the complainant woman was making various transactions on e-commerce websites from the credit/ debit card of the man. However, the court said this would also be tested during the trial.