$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1549/2017
Order reserved on: 05th December, 2017
Order pronounced on: 7th December, 2017
SHUBHAM CHAWLA ….Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Suri, Mr. Rishabh Relan,
Mr.Siddharth Kaushik, Advocates with
parents of the petitioner.
versus
THE STATE …..Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State with
SI Ashok, P.S- Amar Colony.
Mr. Hardev Chadha, Advocate with
complainant and her parents in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’)
the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR
No. 264/2017, under Section 354/323/341/506/427 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’), registered by P.S.
Amar Colony, New-Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complaint was
lodged by Ketika/complainant alleging that on 07.07.2017 at
around 09.30 am, when she was leaving for her coaching centre in
an auto rickshaw, the petitioner came near the auto rickshaw,
stopped her vehicle, pulled her out and asked her to come along
with him. On her refusal to do so, the petitioner threatened her and
BAIL APPLN. 1549/2017 Page 1 of 5
even snatched her phone. Thereby the complaint was lodged by the
complainant under Section 354/323/341/506/427 of IPC. Hence,
the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present
FIR filed against the petitioner is false and fabricated; that the
petitioner and the complainant were in relationship with each other
since two and a half years, which was not accepted by her parents
and therefore, implicated him in a false case; that the petitioner was
acting under the influence of her parents and is in constant touch
with the petitioner even after the lodging of the FIR; that no
ingredients of Section 354 is fulfilled so as to implicate the
petitioner under the said section; that no custodial interrogation is
required. Hence, under the said circumstances, the present petition
should be allowed.
4. Per contra, the learned APP for the State contends that benefit of
anticipatory bail should not be accorded to the petitioner as the
offence is of serious nature and stated that the petitioner has not
even joined the investigation.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. After giving careful consideration to the entire facts and
circumstances of the present case, it is observed that as per FIR, the
petitioner herein is charged for the offences under Section
354/323/341/506/427 of IPC. The complainant during lodging of
her FIR has specifically stated that on 07.07.2017, the petitioner
stopped her auto rickshaw and pulled her out of it. She further
BAIL APPLN. 1549/2017 Page 2 of 5
alleged that on her refusal to go along with her, he hit her and
thereafter threatened her that he would kill her or kidnap her or get
her attacked with acid. Further, while recording of her statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C, she stated on similar lines by accusing
him of severe offences and further stated that he threatened her that
he would get her abducted if she refuses to stay with her and would
also misuse her photographs.
7. Perusal of the record shows that he has been accused by the
complainant of the offences under Section 354/323/341/506/427 of
IPC. The contention of the counsel for the parties that no
ingredients of Section 354 is fulfilled so as to implicate the
petitioner under the said section is not accepted as per the
allegations made by the complainant in her FIR as well as her
subsequent statement made by her during recording of statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Section 354 IPC, makes penal the
assault or use of criminal force to a woman to outrage her modesty.
The essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC are:
(a)That the assault must be on a woman (b)That the accused must
have used criminal force on her (c)That the criminal force must
have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her
modesty. He is charged with other serious offences of penal
consequences.
8. On perusal of the statements made by her against the petitioner, it
is observed that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and
serious. Also, in Status Report, it has been stated that the
investigation is still in process and the petitioner herein is evading
BAIL APPLN. 1549/2017 Page 3 of 5
arrest by not joining the investigation. Thus, the chance of the
petitioner escaping the procedure of law, tampering with the
evidence or threatening the complainant exists. In my view, since
the case is at the threshold and the investigations are underway, it
will be practically scuttling the investigation in case the
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner which will create
hurdles in arriving at the truth.
9. Determining the parameters in granting anticipatory bail in cases of
serious offences. The Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai
Sheth vs State Of Gujarat Anr. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152
after analyzing the entire law has observed as under:-
“(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the
exact role of the accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;
(b) The antecedents of the applicant including the
fact as to whether the accused has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in
respect of any cognizable offence;
(c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from
justice;
(d) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to
repeat similar or other offences;
(e) Where the accusations have been made only with
the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by
arresting him or her;
(f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in
cases of large magnitude affecting a very large
number of people;
(g) The courts must evaluate the entire available
material against the accused very carefully. The
court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of
the accused in the case. The cases in which the
accused is implicated with the help of SectionsBAIL APPLN. 1549/2017 Page 4 of 5
34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should
consider with even greater care and caution, because
over implication in the cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern;
(h) While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between
two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to
free, fair and full investigation, and there should be
prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified
detention of the accused;
(i) The Court should consider reasonable
apprehension of tampering of the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of genuineness
that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant
of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as
to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal
course of events, the accused in entitled to an order
of bail.”
10. In view of the aforesaid settled principles, the facts and
circumstances of the present case and perusing the allegations
leveled against the petitioner, and considering the gravity of
offence, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stand dismissed along with the
pending application, if any.
11. Observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merits
of the case.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 07 , 2017 gr//
BAIL APPLN. 1549/2017 Page 5 of 5
