While considering a petition seeking regular bail in an FIR that was registered under Sections 384/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Sections 67/67A of the Information Technology Act, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused of abetment of suicide in a case where the deceased was allegedly blackmailed with an obscene video purportedly filmed by the accused.

The case of the prosecution was that information was received by the police that the daughter of the caller/complainant had committed suicide. Thereafter, the deceased was brought to hospital, where the doctor declared her brought dead. During investigation, the statement of the mother of the deceased was recorded, wherein she disclosed that her daughter/deceased was friends with the petitioner and the deceased had revealed that the petitioner along with his mother (co-accused) had made explicit videos of her and were demanding money, otherwise they shall release these videos to the public. It was stated that because of such incident, the fiancé of the deceased broke off the engagement and due to this the deceased was disturbed and had taken her life.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that “It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be awarded to him. Detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. The seriousness of allegations or the availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail”.

Advocate Rajesh Anand appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Richa Dhawan appeared for the Respondent.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that it is a well-established legal principle that when reviewing a bail application, the High Court is obligated to consider the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.

The Bench’s attention was drawn to the statements of the father of the deceased, brother-in-law of the complainant, and the deceased's elder sister, all of which were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, which clearly indicated that no demand of Rs. 10 lakhs were made on the date of the deceased's engagement, as alleged by the prosecution.

The Bench further observed that, despite the complainant's claim that the accused individuals had made a telephonic demand of Rs. 10 lakhs to her husband, such an assertion was not supported by the statement of the husband/father of the deceased. Additionally, none of the other witnesses had provided statements to that effect.

The Bench made it clear that the court should not ignore the discrepancies, inconsistencies, or changes in the testimony of the complainant, who was examined as prosecution witness, and in the statements of other witnesses. Such discrepancies have the potential to weaken the prosecution's case to some extent.

The Bench highlighted that all parties involved did not dispute the fact that the core of the prosecution's case hinged on an alleged obscene video purportedly filmed by the accused persons. However, it was worth noting that this video had not seen light of the day. Additionally, this alleged video was not included in the charge-sheet, and no obscene video had been found in the possession of the petitioner or upon investigation at his behest.

The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner had already spent approximately 20 months in custody, and the prosecution had listed a total of 30 witnesses, with 29 of them yet to be examined. This situation would undoubtedly result in a prolonged trial.

Given these circumstances, the High Court concluded that there would be no meaningful benefit in keeping the petitioner detained any longer, as there was no dispute regarding the petitioner's clean record and that he was approximately 25 years old at the time of the incident.

Emphasizing that detaining a young individual in jail, alongside hardened criminals, could potentially have a detrimental effect on his well-being, the High Court held that the petitioner should be granted regular bail pending trial.

Cause Title: Pankaj Daang v. State of NCT of Delhi [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7557]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment


Delhi High CourtJustice Vikas Mahajan

Pankaj Bajpai