Delhi HC grants anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act, exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Delhi High Court on May 30, 2020 {NARESH TYAGI vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI} held that without a complete investigation, it may not be possible for the Court to come to any conclusion that the FIR was indeed false. It was held that even if the complaint of the petitioner had resulted in the altercation with the complainant, suggesting a possibility of embellishments in the FIR to make it more serious than simple hurt and criminal intimidation, that will not be enough reason to quash it.

The Single Judge of HC, Justice Asha Menon, further held that the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court has thus been that where no prima facie case is made out, or it appears that the complaint is malicious or mala fide or a person apprehends false implication and arrest, pre-arrest bail can be granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power has to be used sparingly and in exceptional cases where not exercising such inherent powers could lead to miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law.

In the present case, the petition has been filed before the Delhi HC under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, for short) seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘Act’, for short) and all proceedings arising therefrom.

The HC held that since the investigations are not complete, the Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. It was further held that at the same time, where possibility of embellishments in the FIR to enhance the seriousness of the allegations cannot be discounted at this stage, due to the sequence of events of a complaint being filed by the petitioner against the complainant and a quarrel taking place between the two the next day and the FIR being lodged almost a week thereafter, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court considers it appropriate in the interest of justice, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Thus, the HC while rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIR, the petitioner was admitted to anticipatory bail till the filing of the charge-sheet. The petition was accordingly disposed of.