The Delhi High Court has approved bail for a man who was accused of abetting suicide in a case where the deceased was allegedly coerced with an explicit video that the accused claimed to have filmed. The case involved charges under Sections 384/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 67/67A of the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution's case centered on the following events: The police received information that the daughter of the caller/complainant had committed suicide. Subsequently, the deceased was taken to the hospital, where a doctor pronounced her dead upon arrival. As part of the investigation, the deceased's mother provided a statement in which she revealed that her daughter had been friends with the petitioner. The deceased had confided in her mother that the petitioner, along with his mother (a co-accused), had created explicit videos of her and were demanding money. They threatened to make these videos public if she didn't comply. It was alleged that this incident led to the breakdown of the deceased's engagement, causing her significant distress and ultimately leading to her taking her own life.

A Single Judge Bench, with Justice Vikas Mahajan presiding, emphasized a fundamental legal principle. They stated that it is firmly established that, during the pre-conviction stage, the presumption is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The primary purpose of detaining a person is to ensure their presence during the trial and for the subsequent sentencing, if convicted. Detention should not be used as a means of punishment or as a preventive measure. It was also noted that the severity of the allegations or the presence of evidence to support those allegations should not be the sole factors in deciding whether to grant or deny bail.

After reviewing the submissions made, the Bench highlighted a well-established legal principle. It stated that when assessing a bail application, the High Court is legally obligated to take into account the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). These statements often contain important information and evidence relevant to the case and play a crucial role in the bail decision-making process.

The Bench was made aware of statements provided by the deceased's father, the complainant's brother-in-law, and the deceased's elder sister, all of which were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. These statements strongly indicated that there was no demand for Rs. 10 lakhs made on the day of the deceased's engagement, as claimed by the prosecution. This suggests that the prosecution's assertion regarding this specific demand was contradicted by the statements of these individuals during the investigation.

The Bench also noted that, even though the complainant had alleged that the accused had made a telephonic demand for Rs. 10 lakhs to her husband, this claim was not corroborated by the statement of the deceased's father/husband. Furthermore, none of the other witnesses had testified to such a demand. The Bench emphasized that the court should not disregard the inconsistencies, discrepancies, or alterations in the testimony of the complainant, who was presented as a prosecution witness, and in the statements of other witnesses. Such inconsistencies have the potential to diminish the strength of the prosecution's case to some extent.

The Bench underscored that all parties involved in the case did not contest the central point of the prosecution's case, which revolved around the existence of an alleged explicit video purportedly filmed by the accused individuals. However, it was crucial to recognize that this video had not been presented as evidence. Moreover, the alleged video was not included in the charge-sheet, and there was no discovery of an explicit video in the possession of the petitioner or through the course of the investigation. The Bench also took into account that the petitioner had already spent approximately 20 months in custody and that the prosecution had listed a total of 30 witnesses, with 29 of them still awaiting examination. This situation would inevitably result in a protracted trial.

In light of these circumstances, the High Court reached the conclusion that there would be no significant advantage in prolonging the petitioner's detention. It was acknowledged that there was no dispute regarding the petitioner's clean record and the fact that he was around 25 years old at the time of the incident. The High Court emphasized that detaining a young individual in a prison environment, alongside hardened criminals, could have adverse effects on his well-being. Therefore, the High Court ruled that the petitioner should be granted regular bail while awaiting trial.

Case: Pankaj Daang v. State of NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 1560/2023.