Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-02,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided Over by:- Ashish Aggarwal, DHJS
Bail Application No.275/2024
State v Pooja Chauhan
FIR No.7/2024
PS Vigilance
20.12.2024
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of applicant/accused Pooja
Chauhan.
Present : Sh. Manoj Kumar Garg, Ld. Public Prosecutor for State.
Sh. Ajit Singh Dahiya and Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Agrawal, Ld. Counsels for
applicant/accused.
IO Inspector Pramod Kumar is present.
IO has filed reply. Copy of the same is supplied to Ld. Counsel for
applicant/accused. Upon asking, IO states that he has not been able to contact the
complainant since she is not residing at the given address and her phone is switched
off.
Arguments are advanced by Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused and Ld.
Public Prosecutor in respect of the application for bail, at length.
Put up for orders at 04:00 pm.
(Ashish Aggarwal)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
20.12.2024
-- 1 of 7 --
At 04:00 pm.
Present : Sh. Manoj Kumar Garg, Ld. Public Prosecutor for State.
Sh. Ajit Singh Dahiya, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
1. This order shall decide the application for bail filed on behalf of
applicant/accused Pooja Chauhan.
2. It is stated in the application for bail that the applicant is a law abiding citizen;
that the applicant has deep roots in society; that the applicant has clean
antecedents; that the applicant was arrested on 07.11.2024 and has been in
custody for over one and a half months; that the allegations are not believable;
that the entire evidence is already in the possession of the investigating
agency; that no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in custody;
that the investigating officer did not even take police custody of the applicant;
that the applicant is a lady and is suffering from several gynaecological
problems; that the applicant is in need of constant medical attention and care;
that the applicant has a three years’ old son who is suffering from various
ailments; that the applicant has already been suspended from service; that the
maximum punishment prescribed for the offence in question is seven years.
3. Ld. counsel for applicant/accused has advanced arguments. It is argued that
the Court is required to take a liberal view in matters of grant of bail where a
woman is an accused. It is also argued that the applicant has never threatened
or tried to influence the witness/complainant. It is argued that as per directions
-- 2 of 7 --
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v CBI
(2022) 10 SCC 51, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
4. Ld. counsel for applicant has relied upon judgments as Kalvakuntla Kavitha v
Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 632, Yudhveer Singh Yadav v Central
Bureau of Investigation Bail Application No.3015/2024 dated 08.10.2024 and
Ramnivash v The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Petition(s) to Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No(s).12816/2023 dated 25.01.2024.
5. Ld. Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for bail. It is argued that the
applicant had taken bribe of Rs.5000/- and that the applicant may threaten the
complainant.
6. I have heard arguments and have gone through the record.
7. The applicant has been arrested on the ground that she accepted Rs.5000/-
as bribe. She has spent one and a half months in custody.
8. The previous bail application had been withdrawn. At the time of that hearing,
it had been informed that there are allegations that the applicant has got
threats advanced to the complainant. This Court had ordered the DCP to
conduct an inquiry in this behalf. The DCP has conducted an inquiry and has
submitted his report before this Court. As per the said report, the said threats
were not advanced.
9. The complainant has not appeared. She is reportedly not residing at her given
address.
-- 3 of 7 --
10. Investigation against the applicant/accused has substantially been completed.
In the case of Babu Singh & Ors. V State of U. P. (19789) 1 SCC 579, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that the dismissal of previous application for bail does
not preclude filing of second application for bail on a later occasion “giving
more materials, further developments and different considerations ”.
11. Recovery of the sum of bribe has already taken place. Evidence had already
been collected. The evidence is not such that it can be tampered with.
Continuing incarceration of the applicant will, in no manner, aid the
investigation. There is a presumption of innocence of accused and she cannot
be detained as a punitive measure.
12. In the case of Moti Ram Vs. State of M.P. (1978) 4 SCC 47, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held :
“The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave.
Defendants presumed innocent are subjected to the
psychological and physical deprivations of jail life, usually
under more onerous conditions than are imposed on
convicted defendants. The jailed defendant loses his job if
he has one and is prevented from contributing to the
preparation of his defence.
Equally important, the burden of his detention frequently falls
heavily on the innocent members of his family."
-- 4 of 7 --
13. In the case of Siddharam Saltingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011)
1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
“Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it
should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative
according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case."
14. The applicant being a lady is entitled to beneficial and liberal consideration of
her application for bail. She is stated to be suffering from certain ailments,
which is established by medical documents. She also has an infant child to
take care of.
15. In the case of Sanjay Chandra vs CBI Crl. Appeal No.2178 of 2011 decided
on 23 November, 2011, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows :-
“In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the
earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an
accused person will stand his trial when called upon.”
-- 5 of 7 --
“The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that
punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is
deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.”
16. The witnesses are not under the control of the applicant. They being police
officers are not amenable to pressure or influence. The presence of accused
person at the trial can be secured by imposing conditions.
17. Regarding the complainant, it has already come in the report of the DCP that
no attempt was made to influence her.
18. There is no chance of the offence being repeated since the applicant has
reportedly being suspended.
19. Given the roots of the applicant, it cannot deemed that she would abscond on
being granted bail.
20. In my opinion, in light of the aforesaid circumstances, the application for bail
deserves to be allowed.
21. The application for bail is allowed. Applicant Pooja Chauhan is directed to be
enlarged on bail, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with
one surety in the like sum and subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of this
Court.
b. The applicant shall not misuse the benefit of bail by indulging in commission
of similar offences in future.
-- 6 of 7 --
c. The applicant shall not contact any of the witnesses of the case or extend,
directly or indirectly, any inducement or threat to the witnesses.
d. The applicant shall appear before this Court on each and every date of
hearing, after filing of charge-sheet.
e. The applicant shall intimate this Court in case of change of her address.
22. If the applicant is found to be violating any of the above conditions, the State
shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.
23. Copy of this order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused, as
prayed.
(Ashish Aggarwal)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
20.12.2024
-- 7 of 7 --