2024 (7) TMI 1589 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - alleged assault - complain submits that she was brutally assaulted and apprehends danger to her life - HELD THAT - The factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail amongst other circumstances have been reiterated in PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR VERSUS ASHIS CHATTERJEE AND ORS. 2010 (10) TMI 1199 - SUPREME COURT and may be beneficially referred. Allegations of assault at the Chief Minister s Office cum Residence made by the complainant(a sitting Member of Parliament) against PS to the Chief Minister cannot be disbelieved merely on account of delay in registration of FIR since the events unfolded after the incident reflect that complainant was in a traumatized condition faced with the unprovoked brutal assault. Complainant would not have herself made a call on 112 during the course of assault in case no such incident had occurred - despite mustering the courage to visit the police station on the same day and informing the SHO complainant returned without lodging the FIR. In the peculiar facts and circumstances it may be preposterous at this stage to infer that petitioner has been falsely implicated and allegations have been concocted since apparently the complainant had no motive to implicate the petitioner. No doubt the petitioner happens to be only designated as a PS but the facts and circumstances reflect that he yields considerable influence and it cannot be ruled out that witnesses may be influenced or evidence may be tampered with in case the petitioner is released on bail at this stage. Conclusion - The petitioner should not be granted bail given the serious nature of the allegations the potential for evidence tampering and the influence the petitioner could exert over witnesses. Bail application dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal issue considered by the Court was whether the petitioner, who was seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be granted bail in connection with FIR No. 277/2024. The FIR was registered under Sections 308, 341, 354B, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Police Station Civil Lines. The key questions included the assessment of the prima facie case against the petitioner, the nature and gravity of the accusations, the potential for the petitioner to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and the implications of the delay in filing the FIR.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The Court referred to the principles outlined in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, which provide a framework for considering bail applications. These principles include evaluating whether there is a prima facie case, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of potential punishment, the risk of the accused absconding, the character and position of the accused, the likelihood of the offense being repeated, and the possibility of witnesses being influenced or justice being thwarted.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court noted that the allegations made by the complainant, a sitting Member of Parliament, against the petitioner, who was the Personal Secretary to the Chief Minister, were serious and could not be dismissed solely due to the delay in filing the FIR. The Court emphasized that the complainant's actions, such as calling the emergency number 112 during the alleged assault, supported the credibility of her claims. The Court also considered the potential influence the petitioner could exert due to his position, which could lead to evidence tampering or witness intimidation.

Key Evidence and Findings

The Court highlighted several pieces of evidence and circumstances that weighed against granting bail. These included the selective provision of CCTV footage from the Chief Minister's residence, the formatting of the petitioner's mobile phone before it was seized, and the absence of the appointment register from the Chief Minister's office. The Court also noted that the report by Deepak Dikshit, which could have provided additional context, was not part of the police investigation.

Application of Law to Facts

Applying the legal principles to the facts, the Court found that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner. The nature and gravity of the accusations were serious, involving allegations of assault and threats. The Court also considered the potential for the petitioner to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, given his position and the actions taken to conceal evidence.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Court considered the petitioner's arguments, which included claims of a fabricated complaint, lack of motive for the alleged assault, and the simplicity of the injuries. The petitioner also highlighted the delay in filing the FIR and his role as merely an employee dealing with political appointments. However, the Court found these arguments insufficient to outweigh the concerns about evidence tampering and witness influence.

Conclusions

The Court concluded that no grounds were made out for releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage, given the serious nature of the accusations and the potential for interference with the investigation. The application for bail was dismissed.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that the allegations of assault at the Chief Minister's Office cum Residence could not be dismissed merely due to the delay in filing the FIR. The Court emphasized that the complainant's status and the circumstances following the incident supported the credibility of her claims. The Court also noted the efforts to suppress evidence, such as the selective provision of CCTV footage and the formatting of the petitioner's mobile phone, which indicated an attempt to conceal vital evidence.

Core Principles Established

The judgment reinforced the principles for considering bail applications, emphasizing the need to assess the potential for evidence tampering and witness influence, especially when the accused holds a position of power. The Court also highlighted the importance of considering the overall circumstances and the credibility of the complainant's actions in the aftermath of the alleged incident.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The Court determined that the petitioner should not be granted bail, given the serious nature of the allegations, the potential for evidence tampering, and the influence the petitioner could exert over witnesses. The application for bail was dismissed, and the Court noted that the findings were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.