HC: Not appropriate to keep the accused in custody merely because the complainant is getting threatening calls

  

On 22^nd July, a bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Subromonium Prasad, held that since the petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 389 IPC which is bailable offence therefore just because the complainant is alleging that he is getting threatening calls, it will not be appropriate to keep the accused in custody. Further, the court justified the granting of the bail on the ground that there was nothing to show that till the co-accused is not arrested the petitioner has to be kept in custody.

Facts of the case:

This petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.118/2021 dated 10.04.2021 registered at Police Station South Rohini for offences punishable under Sections 328, 389 and 34 IPC. The complaint was filed by one Rishab Jain who was being blackmailed by the petitioner demanding a mobile phone, a TV and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the complainant and threatened him that if his demands are not met, his girlfriend would file a case of rape against him.

Submission of the petitioner:

Mr. Viraj Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was in custody since 11.04.2021. He further stated that since the charge-sheet has been filed therefore there was no necessity of keeping the petitioner in custody and the petitioner be released on bail.

Submission of respondent:

Mr. Rahul Chandlok, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had been receiving threatening phone calls. He also stated that the co-accused is still at large and therefore bail ought not to be granted to the petitioner.

Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State also opposed the bail by stating that the co-accused is still at large.

Observation and judgment of the court:

The Hon’ble bench of the court observed the following:

1. Just because the complainant is alleging that he is getting threatening calls, it will not be appropriate to keep the accused in custody and the Court can lay down conditions to ensure that the complainant is not harassed.
2. There is nothing to show that till the co-accused is not arrested the petitioner has to be kept in custody.

In view of the above, the court granted bail to the petitioner after laying certain conditions.

 

Thus, the petition was disposed.

Read Judgment ;

 

 

SOURCE ; latestlaws.com/

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure