Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Vineet Surelia v. The State of NCT of Delhi, has held that an accused, once granted bail, is always expected to not only join the investigation but also participate in it.

What is the Background of Vineet Surelia v. The State of NCT Of Delhi Case?

• As per First Information Report (FIR), the complainant/ prosecutrix and the applicant got introduced to each other through an online dating application.
• On 13.06.2023, the complainant went to meet the applicant at Central Secretariat Metro Station, Delhi, whereafter, she went to the house of the applicant where he stated that he had some work pending therein, thereafter she was offered a soft beverage along with some food, after having the same, the complainant felt dizzy and during that half-awake state, the applicant did some acts of sexual misconducts upon her.
• Thereafter, she managed to escape therefrom and lodged the present FIR under Section 328, Section 376 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• For the purpose of seeking anticipatory bail, the applicant before the Delhi High Court has filed the present application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
  • The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed 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.
• The Court held that, 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.
• 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 and shall cause a hinderance to the ongoing investigation being carried on.
• The Court further noted that 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.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 328, IPC

• This Section deals with the causing of hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.
• It states that whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 506, IPC

• This Section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation.
• It states that whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc., or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
• Section 503 of IPC defines criminal intimidation. It states that whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intim­idation.