Delhi HC grants conditional bail to 2 accused in SC/ST Act case as they were not required for custodial investigation and matter revolved around civil dispute relating to sale of property
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta [12-02-2024]

Read Order: PRIYANKA ARORA AND ORS v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [DEL HC- CRL.A. 132/2024]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, February 14, 2024: In a civil dispute matter relating to the sale of property where the custodial investigation of the accused-appellants was not required, the Delhi High Court has granted the relief of bail to 2 accused booked under the SC/ST Act on a condition that they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs 25,000 each with one surety.

It was the case of the prosecution that a complaint was received from Ms.’C’ alleging that Priyanka Arora and Kapil Dev (appellants) along with Harish Chander Pahwa followed her and drove the car towards her. Further, a complaint lodged by her earlier against Priyanka Arora, Kapil Dev Arora and Harish Chander Pahwa had culminated in registration of FIR under various Sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. She further stated that in her earlier two complaints, it was also pointed out that aforesaid accused/appellants followed her regularly and tried to hit her by a car. As such, she apprehended danger to her life from the aforesaid accused/appellants who threatened her and used vulgar language earlier.

As per the status report filed by the prosecution, complainant, during investigation stated that earlier an FIR was registered under Section 420 IPC wherein both the parties were engaged in mediation. The said case pertained to dispute of sale of property wherein the appellants allegedly refused the execution of sale deed in favour of the complainant. Complainant during investigation also alleged that she was verbally abused by the appellants and they also showed her middle finger and attempted to hit her by the vehicle.

The Criminal Appeals had been preferred on behalf of the appellants under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) challenging the order  remanding the appellants to judicial custody along with order whereby the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was withdrawn with liberty to move the appropriate forum against order declining the first bail application preferred on behalf of the appellants. Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989  was invoked by the prosecution subsequent to registration of FIR.

The appellants challenged the order declining the bail to both the appellants and submitted that appellant Priyanka Arora aged about 43 years is running an NGO and staying with her parents. The present case was stated to have been lodged on the next day of the alleged incident in order to pressurize the appellants to settle the civil dispute relating to sale of property.

It was the case of the respondents that the allegations levelled by the complainant were corroborated by the CCTV footage and the appellants had been stalking and harassing the complainant. It as contended that since an attempt had been made to hit the complainant even in the past, they did not deserve the benefit of bail.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was of the view that the relations between both the parties went sour after the dispute arose with regard to sale of property. An FIR was registered earlier under Section 420/34 IPC without arresting the appellants, considering that the genesis of the complaint related to dispute regarding sale of property. Appellants were stated to have been placed in Column No.12 in the final report but also stand summoned under Section 3(1)(r)(s), Section 3(1)(w)(ii) & Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

The Bench further opined that on the alleged date and time of the incident i.e. 25.10.2023, appellants could not have contemplated that the complainant would also be passing the street while approaching from opposite direction. Further, nothing substantive could be concluded on the basis of CCTV footage, relied upon by the prosecution. Even the ASJ observed that as per CCTV footage, only the brakes appeared to have been applied in the Baleno car belonging to the appellants but nothing further was visible.

“The observations made by the learned ASJ that the appellants after first FIR, again committed the similar offence on 25.10.2023, can be determined only after the evidence is led by the prosecution and the same cannot be prima facie concluded by the CCTV footage. The genesis of the dispute is on account of civil dispute relating to sale of property. The appellants are no more required for any custodial investigation”, the Bench held.

Thus, observing that the order passed by the ASJ declining the bail to the appellants did not appear to be on cogent grounds, the Bench set aside the same.

The High Court granted conditional bail to both the appellants on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 25,000 each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court/Trial Court/Duty MM.