2024 (9) TMI 1693 - SCH - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - allegations are that the petitioner who was Private Secretary to the Chief Minister of Delhi assaulted the complainant-victim who is a Member of Parliament for Rajya Sabha from Delhi at the time when she entered the residence of the Chief Minister of Delhi - HELD THAT - In the quest to strike a balance between liberty on one hand and a fair trial on the other it is appreciated that the concern of the prosecution that the witnesses must be kept free from any kind of extraneous pressure or influence to enable them to depose fearleslly. It is satisfying that the desired protection can be afforded through various alternative measures including by imposing such reasonable terms and conditions which would prevent the propensity to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. In any case any such attempt by the beneficiary of a discretionary jurisdiction of the Court will amount to misuse of concession of bail and the necessary consequences would thus follow. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances however without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case it is deemed appropriate to release the petitioner on bail - The petitioner is accordingly directed to be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court. Bail application allowed.

Summary

The petitioner sought bail in connection with FIR No.277/2024, under Sections 308, 341, 354-B, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi. The allegations involve the petitioner, who served as Private Secretary to the Chief Minister of Delhi, allegedly assaulting the complainant, a Member of Parliament for Rajya Sabha from Delhi, at the Chief Minister's residence on 13.05.2024. The FIR was registered on 16.05.2024, and the petitioner was arrested on 18.05.2024. Following police custody, the petitioner was sent to judicial custody.

The investigation is complete, and a chargesheet has been filed. The Court decided not to address whether a prima facie case under Section 308 IPC is made out, leaving it to the Trial Court to consider at the appropriate stage.

Regarding the bail application, the Court noted that the prosecution intends to examine over 51 witnesses, indicating that the trial will take a considerable time. The petitioner has been in custody for more than 100 days. The Court found that releasing the petitioner at this stage would not likely impede the investigation, which is already complete.

The prosecution and the complainant's counsel argued against bail, citing the petitioner's past official status and political influence, which could potentially affect vulnerable witnesses. They suggested deferring bail until these witnesses are examined by the Trial Court.

The Court acknowledged the need to balance the petitioner's liberty with ensuring a fair trial. It recognized the prosecution's concern about witness protection but believed that imposing reasonable conditions could prevent any undue influence or evidence tampering. The Court emphasized that any attempt by the petitioner to misuse the bail concession would have consequences.

Considering the circumstances, the Court decided to grant bail without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail with conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.

Additional conditions imposed by the Court include:

• The petitioner shall not resume the position of Private Secretary to the Chief Minister of Delhi or take any other assignment during the trial.
• The petitioner shall not enter the Chief Minister's residence or office until all vulnerable witnesses are examined by the Trial Court.
• The prosecution is instructed to first produce important and vulnerable witnesses, who should be examined by the Trial Court at the earliest, preferably within three months.
• The petitioner shall refrain from making public comments on the sub-judice issues to protect the victim's rights and prevent self-serving narratives.
• The petitioner retains the liberty to raise all contentions before the Trial Court.

The Special Leave Petition was disposed of in these terms, and any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.