Mr. Naveen Arya, Advocate v. STATE

Judgment

1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 31/2019 dated 20.01.2019, registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar, for offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The chargesheet has been filed against applicant offences Sections 306/366/376/376D/109/201/34 of the IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.01.2019, information was received regarding a girl having fallen from the roof. It was found that a missing report had been registered by the victim’s parents on 17.01.2019 alleging that she had left her home for job training and not returned home. The victim succumbed to her injuries on 20.01.2019.

3. During investigation, the co-accused CCL ‘S’ was arrested. He disclosed his involvement in the crime and revealed that he had interviewed the victim and she had been working with him for over 10 days. He disclosed that the victim had also This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 411/2025

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 19/03/2025 at 12:13:39 refused his sexual advances and on her refusal, he had made a plan with the other accused persons that he would bring the victim to the house of the applicant and they would “adjust” together with her.

4. It is alleged that the co-accused CCL ‘S’ took the victim to the house of the applicant on the pretext of providing her with another part time job with better pay. It is alleged that at the house, co-accused Ravi along with co-accused persons Pardeep and CCL ‘S’ committed gang rape on the victim.

5. It is alleged that the applicant and his wife provided the place for the accused persons to commit rape and they were present at the spot when the victim was raped.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent. He submits that there is no material to show that the applicant was aware of the alleged plot of raping the victim.

7. He submits that similarly placed co-accused Soni Devi, who is the wife of the applicant, has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. He further submits that this Court has also granted bail to co-accused Ravi in the present case.

8. He submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since

24.01.2019 and the prosecution evidence has still not concluded. He submits that quite a few prosecution witnesses are still to be examined and the trial will take long to conclude.

9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that no relief should be granted to the applicant as the allegations are heinous in nature.

10. He further submits that the learned Trial Court granted bail to the wife of the applicant after taking note of the special consideration that is to be accorded to women in terms of Section This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 411/2025 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 19/03/2025 at 12:13:39 437 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

11. The learned counsel for the complainant also contested the grant of any relief to the applicant. He submits that the applicant had facilitated the commission of the offence and the victim was gang raped by the other accused persons in his presence at his house.

13. I have heard the counsel and perused the record. It is settled law that the Court, while considering the application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened; etc. However, at the same time, the period of incarceration is also a relevant factor that is to be considered.

14. It is alleged that the applicant facilitated the commission of the offence at his home and he was present when the victim was raped by the co-accused persons.

15. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

16. It is relevant to note that no allegation has been made against the applicant that he was actively involved in the rape of the victim. From a perusal of the chargesheet, prima facie, it appears that there is no direct evidence which shows that the applicant was aware of the conspiracy of the co-accused persons to rape the victim at his house or which shows his presence at the spot of incident.

17. While the veracity and probative value of the evidence This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 411/2025 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 19/03/2025 at 12:13:39 adduced by the prosecution will be considered at the stage of final arguments, at this stage, the involvement of the applicant in commission of the alleged offence cannot be presumed.

18. Undisputably, co-accused Sona Devi (wife of applicant) has a similar role as that of the applicant of having providing the place for the co-accused persons to commit the crime and being present at the spot when the victim was being raped. She has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. While special consideration owing to her gender was granted to co-accused Sona Devi, however, the learned Trial Court was also weighed by the fact that material witnesses had already been examined, she had no prior antecedents and she had spent about 4 years and 9 months in custody.

19. Moreover, the co-accused Ravi was granted bail by this Court by order dated 21.10.2024, in BAIL APPLN. 1731/2024, after noting that he had suffered more than four years in custody and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb : AIR 2021 SC 712 where it was held that once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible, and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.

20. The applicant is in custody since 24.01.2019 and the prosecution evidence is yet to conclude. As also noted by this Court while granting bail to co-accused Ravi, the accused cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time. In the opinion of this Court, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further custody.

21. In view of the same, without commenting further on the This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 411/2025 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 19/03/2025 at 12:13:39 merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant ought to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on the following conditions: a. The applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and when directed by the concerned IO; b. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever; c. The applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without the permission of the learned Trial Court; d. The applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed; e. The applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO; f. The applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.

22. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.

23. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 411/2025 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 19/03/2025 at 12:13:39 and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

24. The bail application is allowed in the aforementioned terms. MARCH 17, 2025 (cid:147)SS(cid:148) AMIT MAHAJAN, J This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 411/2025 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 19/03/2025 at 12:13:39