Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

While adjudicating an anticipatory bail plea, the Delhi High Court recently underscored the distinction between merely joining and actively participating in an investigation.

The bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee in an order dated November 7, emphasized that once an accused is granted bail, he/she is not only expected to join the investigation but to actively engage in it.

The case before the court involved a man facing various charges, including rape, as per the FIR lodged against him.

The judge took note of a concerning trend where accused individuals, despite court's directions and imposed conditions, were merely superficially 'joining' the investigation without genuine participation.

This observation arose when the counsel representing the Delhi police disputed the man's claim of being actively involved in the ongoing investigation.

Justice Banerjee acknowledged that an accused can invoke constitutional safeguards such as Articles 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) and 21 (right to life). However, the court stressed that the very purpose of granting anticipatory bail would be defeated if the accused failed to actively participate in the investigative process.

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

While taking note of the accused's clean antecedents and the absence of prior complaints or FIRs against him, the court recognized the potential for ignominy and societal disgrace if bail were denied. It also considered the gravity of the offence and the severity of potential punishment in case of a conviction.

Granting anticipatory bail to the man, the court specified that upon arrest, he would be released on bail, contingent on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and one surety of the same amount from a friend or family member with no criminal antecedents. The court set forth additional conditions to be adhered to.

The case involved interactions between the man and the complainant woman through an online app, with subsequent messaging. The court inferred a prior acquaintance between the two. Notably, the man had previously filed a complaint alleging theft by the complainant woman, though the court emphasized that the veracity of this claim would be subject to trial.

Furthermore, records revealed transactions on e-commerce websites using the man's credit or debit card by the complainant woman, a fact to be scrutinized during the trial, according to the court's order.

Case Title: Vineet Surelia v. The State of NCT of Delhi