Once Granted Bail, Accused Must Not Only 'Join' Investigation But Also 'Participate' In It: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that an accused, once granted bail, is always expected to not only join the investigation but also participate in it, while underscoring that there is a palpable difference between “joining” and “participating” in probe.

“In any event, this Court wishes to take note of the fact that in numerous cases pending trial, unfortunately, there is a recent growing trend wherein an accused, despite either making a statement through counsel in the Court or despite conditions being imposed by the Court, merely chooses to 'physically' join investigation on paper, without any actual participation,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.

The court said if the accused only joins the investigation and does not participate in it, the purpose of granting bail, and especially anticipatory bail, will be defeated.

Justice Banerjee said that it shall cause a hinderance to the ongoing investigation being carried on.

“The applicant is expected to show high sensitivity, diligence and understanding, not only the purpose but also the consequences of any non-compliance of the conditions imposed by the Court while granting bail,” the court said.

The court made the observations while granting anticipatory bail to a government school teacher in a rape case.

The FIR was registered in June for the offences under Section 328 (causing hurt by means of poison or intoxication etc.) 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The complainant alleged that she and the accused met on an online dating application. She stated that one day when she went to the accused's house, he intoxicated her by mixing something in her drink after which he did some acts of sexual misconducts on her.

Granting relief to the accused, the court noted that the veracity of the allegations is a matter of trial and that the complainant was engaged in making various transactions on e-commerce websites from the accused's credit/ debit card.

“The applicant is a Government School Teacher having a wife and two children. The applicant has a family so there is hardly any likelihood of his absconding. There are no complaint(s) of any intimidation and/ or threat extended by the applicant to the complainant. The applicant has clean antecedents with no past history of involvement in any complaint/ FIR of any kind. There are hardly any chances of the applicant tampering with the evidence and/ or influencing the witnesses,” the court said.

Justice Banerjee further said that there was no requirement for any custodial interrogation of the accused and that not granting him bail at this stage can lead to his ignominy, humiliation and disgrace in the society.

“Therefore, there are enough materials on record for this Court to give benefit of the doubt to the applicant for allowing the present application for grant of anticipatory bail,” the court said.

Advocates Asutosh Lohia, Rohit Saraswat and Nitin Surelia appeared for the Applicant.

APP Meenakshi Dahiya appeared for the State. Advocate Aishwarya Rao represented the victim.

Title: VINEET SURELIA v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1114

Click Here To Read Order