2021 (4) TMI 1341 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - sexual harrasment to complainant - HELD THAT - No doubt, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature but the severity of the allegations is not the only consideration which should result in denial of grant of bail to the petitioner. The totality of the circumstances deserves to be seen before a person is granted or denied anticipatory bail. In the instant case, there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner and his wife who is the mother of the complainant are involved in various litigations amongst each other - There is a history of litigations in regard to the control of business between the petitioner and the mother of the complainant. Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner has also laid much emphasis on the delay in lodging the FIR and contended that there is no plausible explanation for the delay and the same is fatal to the case of the complainant. In the instant case, the alleged offence took place on 18.05.2020 and on the same very day, according to the complainant she had informed her mother about the incident and also discussed with her but the complaint was only lodged on 29.12.2020. In between this period from the record, it is evident that the petitioner and the mother of the complainant have been litigating. In the instant case, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail on account of the fact that no recovery of any articles is to be effected inasmuch as this is a case where all the articles have been seized by the police as per the Status Report and he had joined the investigation at least six times. No doubt, the delay in lodging the FIR is not always fatal and it depends upon the facts of each case. The reasons given by the counsel for the complainant for the delay is that the complainant never wanted to spoil the matrimonial home of her mother and secondly her fiance would have left her if he had come to know about the conduct of the petitioner. Though, the complainant has tried to explain the delay, but the same can be looked into at the time of trial and as to what would be the fate of such delay would be seen at that particular stage - In the instant case, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail on account of the fact that no recovery of any articles is to be effected inasmuch as this is a case where all the articles have been seized by the police as per the Status Report and he had joined the investigation at least six times. The petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned with the condition that he shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten any of the witnesses - bail application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of sexual harassment and assault.
2. Delay in lodging the FIR.
3. Petitioner’s involvement in business disputes and litigations.
4. Petitioner’s claim of false implication.
5. Requirement of custodial interrogation.
6. Grant of anticipatory bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Sexual Harassment and Assault:
The complainant, the stepdaughter of the petitioner, lodged an FIR alleging sexual harassment and assault by the petitioner. The complaint detailed instances of inappropriate behavior, aggressive sexual harassment, and a specific incident on 18.05.2020 where the petitioner allegedly assaulted her in the bathroom, threatened her, and made a nude video. The complainant also mentioned that the petitioner mixed substances in her drinks and exhibited vulgar behavior. The petitioner denied these allegations, claiming they were fabricated due to business disputes with the complainant’s mother.

2. Delay in Lodging the FIR:
The alleged incident occurred on 18.05.2020, but the FIR was lodged on 29.12.2020. The petitioner’s counsel argued that this delay was unexplained and indicative of a false complaint. The complainant’s counsel explained that the delay was due to the complainant’s desire to protect her mother’s matrimonial home and her engagement. The court acknowledged the delay but stated that it could be examined during the trial.

3. Petitioner’s Involvement in Business Disputes and Litigations:
The petitioner and the complainant’s mother were involved in various litigations concerning their business, "Prayer Dhoop Agarbatti Pvt. Ltd." The petitioner alleged that the complaint was a result of business disputes, including allegations of misappropriation of funds and infidelity by the complainant’s mother. The court noted the history of litigations and the petitioner’s complaints about being falsely implicated.

4. Petitioner’s Claim of False Implication:
The petitioner claimed that the complaint was a strategy to extort money and retaliate against him for business-related grievances. He highlighted the delay in the complaint and the ongoing litigations as evidence of false implication. The court considered these claims and noted the petitioner’s previous complaints about potential false accusations.

5. Requirement of Custodial Interrogation:
The court examined whether custodial interrogation was necessary. It noted that the petitioner had already joined the investigation multiple times and that all relevant articles had been seized by the police. The court emphasized that unless there was an imminent need for custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail should not be denied.

6. Grant of Anticipatory Bail:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, considering the totality of circumstances, including the petitioner’s participation in the investigation, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the lack of evidence showing he would tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses. The court required the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety and imposed conditions to not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.

Conclusion:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and the lack of immediate need for custodial interrogation. The judgment considered the serious nature of the allegations, the delay in the FIR, the petitioner’s claims of false implication due to business disputes, and the petitioner’s compliance with the investigation process. The court’s decision balanced the need to protect the complainant’s rights with the petitioner’s right to liberty, ensuring a fair trial process.