Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the accused’s anticipatory bail plea in a case involving allegations of rape, blackmail, and unlawful detention. Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that the CCTV footage from the accused’s office, recorded on the same day as the alleged offence, did not presently support the prosecutrix’s claim of being forcibly detained. The Court found that the prosecutrix had repeatedly failed to join the investigation and refrained from medical examination or recording of her statement under Section 164 CrPC. The accused was granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with conditions not to contact the prosecutrix and to cooperate with the investigation.
Facts
The prosecutrix, separated from her husband, lived in Nihal Vihar with her two daughters and operated a beauty parlour. In June–July 2024, she borrowed ₹1,65,000 from the accused and repaid ₹1,85,000 with interest. She alleged that during her visits to pay instalments, the accused blackmailed her to join him in opening a spa. In September 2024, she claimed he raped her at gunpoint and continued to exploit her sexually under threats. On 25 October 2024, she alleged that he again raped her in his office and locked her parlour. She lodged a complaint on 21 December 2024.
The accused claimed false implication to avoid loan repayment and relied on CCTV footage from 25 October 2024 showing the prosecutrix with her friend, Ms. Sheela, and another person in his office at 2:30 pm—allegedly settling accounts—contradicting her detention claim.
Issues
- Whether the anticipatory bail application should be granted in light of the serious allegations.
- Whether the CCTV footage undermines the prosecution’s version of events.
- Whether the prosecutrix’s conduct during investigation affects the Court’s discretion in granting bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The defence contended that the prosecutrix had fabricated the allegations to evade repayment of the loan. The CCTV footage, recorded on the accused’s mobile phone, showed her freely visiting the office after the alleged incident, undermining the claim of force or detention. The footage also captured a conversation where Ms. Sheela negotiated repayment terms with the accused. The defence argued that it was improbable for a rape survivor to revisit the same place within hours to settle accounts.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution alleged that the accused raped and blackmailed the prosecutrix and that he unlawfully detained her until Ms. Sheela arrived. They contended that the accused enjoyed police support, delaying registration of the FIR until higher authorities intervened. The prosecutrix accused the investigating officer of bias and vindictiveness. The State also submitted that Ms. Sheela was unwilling to cooperate fully with the police except in her lawyer’s chamber, which hindered the investigation.
Analysis of the Law
The Court evaluated the anticipatory bail principles under BNS provisions analogous to Section 438 CrPC, balancing the gravity of allegations against evidentiary material. It noted that at the pre-trial stage, bail decisions are based on prima facie satisfaction rather than conclusive findings. The CCTV footage’s evidentiary value would ultimately be determined at trial, but its existence weighed in favour of granting interim protection.
Precedent Analysis
While no specific precedents were discussed in the judgment, the Court’s reasoning aligns with established principles in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, where anticipatory bail is warranted if custodial interrogation is unnecessary and the accused undertakes to cooperate.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s narrative—particularly the gap between the alleged morning incident and her afternoon presence in the same office. The CCTV footage did not visually substantiate claims of forceful detention. Additionally, the prosecutrix’s repeated non-cooperation in the investigation, including avoiding medical examination and Section 164 CrPC statement, undermined the prosecution’s urgency for custodial interrogation.
Conclusion
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused with conditions:
- Furnish personal bond of ₹10,000 and surety of the same amount.
- No contact with the prosecutrix.
- Full cooperation with the investigation.
The Court emphasised that observations made were limited to bail adjudication and would not affect the merits of the trial.
Implications
This order underscores the High Court’s cautious approach in sexual offence cases where early-stage material, such as CCTV footage, potentially contradicts the prosecution’s version. It also reiterates that non-cooperation by the complainant during investigation can influence the Court’s decision in anticipatory bail matters.
Cases Referred & Relevance
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra: Laid down parameters for granting anticipatory bail.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar: Stressed the need to avoid unnecessary arrests.
FAQs
1. Can CCTV footage influence anticipatory bail in sexual offence cases?
Yes. While its evidentiary value is determined at trial, CCTV footage suggesting conduct inconsistent with the alleged offence can be a factor favouring bail.
2. Does non-cooperation by the prosecutrix affect the bail outcome?
It can. If the complainant repeatedly avoids investigation procedures, the Court may view custodial interrogation as unnecessary.
3. Is anticipatory bail permanent protection from arrest?
No. It is subject to conditions, and violation can lead to cancellation of bail during trial.
