Not Mandatory To Grant Anticipatory Bail Merely Because Interim Protection Was Granted At Initial Stage Of Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere enjoyment of the interim benefit granted by it does not, in any manner, lessen the allegations which need to be considered on merits.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that the Court is required to consider the nature of accusations, supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or apprehension of threat to complainants and prima facie satisfaction in support of charge.

The Court made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to one Bharti Sahani in a case registered under Section 406, 420 and 120B of IPC. While the FIR was registered by one Harpreet Singh, 22 persons subsequently joined as complainants alleging that petitioner induced them to invest in the kitty committees.

It was further alleged that the petitioner alongwith her husband and her two sons collected instalments from various committee members but subsequently defaulted in making payments. About Rs.2 crores was alleged to have been collected by the petitioner after inducing with the assurance of higher returns.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a lady and the case was not investigated properly by the Investigating Officer as there was discrepancy of the amount due to be paid by the petitioner and the same required reconciliation.

On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the bail plea by arguing that multiple victims stand duped of their hard earned money by the petitioner in an organised manner.

The Court observed that the victims were induced by the petitioner to invest their hard earned money in the Kitty Committees with the assurance of higher returns, however, the assured amount was not returned, in a deliberate and organized manner "with due preparation and operation for the entire exercise."

"The motive to deceive on the part of the petitioner is clear as the said high returns were not manageable and no explanation has come forward for misappropriating the amount to the tune of Rs.2 crores. Mere fact that petitioner was known to complainants from 15-20 years and had made some returns on earlier occasions does not absolve the petitioner of her conduct," the Court said.

It added,

"Perhaps, it may send in a wrong message in case the anticipatory bail is granted on the ground that an interim protection had been extended by this Court at the initial stages, when the applicant is otherwise disentitled to anticipatory bail on merits. The mere enjoyment of the interim benefit granted by this Court does not in any manner lessen the allegations which need to be considered on merits."

The Court also observed that the mere fact that an interim protection was granted to the petitioner on deposit of amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs with the Trial Court, did not lead to an inference that the anticipatory bail was bound to be confirmed, since the deposit of amount simply enabled the petitioner to join the investigation and to explore the possibility of settlement, if any.

"The society expects the accountability from its members and any scam which effects large number of the members of the society needs to be disapproved and the legal consequences need to follow. The cases wherein the general public is duped and taken for a ride by sweet talks, as in the present case, calls for a serious view in the matter. The case is yet at the stage of investigation and custodial interrogation of the petitioner has been prayed by the prosecution for unearthing the complete scam," the Court observed.

Considering the gravity of allegations and complaint of threatening of witnesses, the Court found no grounds for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Case Title: BHARTI SAHANI v. STATE (GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 815

Click Here To Read Order