Relief can't be denied on ground that accused will jump bail, surety meant for very purpose of ensuring presence of accused: Delhi Court

A Delhi court has ruled that bail cannot be denied on the ground that an accused would jump bail and not appear before the court as a surety was sought for the very purpose of preventing the same. .The accused, in this case, was booked under Section 498A (woman’s husband or relative of husband subjecting her to cruelty) and Section 377 (unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..Metropolitan Magistrate Shilpi Singh observed that the investigation with respect to the accused was completed, further noting that the ground for opposing the bail was the apprehension of his jumping bail..“This ground cannot be considered for denying bail to the accused as the surety is sought for this very purpose, i.e to ensure the appearance of the accused and an apprehension that the accused may jump the bail is not sufficient enough to decline the application especially where the accused has clean antecedents,” the court held..Senior advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, along with advocates Bharat Ahuja, Jayant Mudgal, Kaustubha Chouhan and Vikalp Sharma, contended that that the investigating officer (IO) searched the premises of the accused and found nothing incriminating. Dubey also submitted that his client had no previous criminal record and deserved bail..The IO, on the contrary, said the accused was arrested as he was not cooperating in the investigation. He added that when the premises of the accused was searched to recover the jewellery of the complainant, it was learnt that the complainant had already taken her jewellery along with her..The complainant’s counsel, Arun Bali said bail should not be granted to the accused as he had mercilessly assaulted the complainant and was booked for the offence under Section 377, IPC..However, the court pointed out that no medico-legal case (MLC) record was filed along with the reply of the investigating officer (IO) to substantiate the allegation of “unnatural offences” and that he could not form an opinion that the allegations are true or false at the present stage..In addition, the medical documents to demonstrate that the complainant was assaulted was also stated to have been not filed along with the reply of the IO..The counsel for the accused, however, sought the permission to share the medical records virtually. .“Perusal of the documents shows that the MLC is neither stamped nor signed by the doctor,” the court stated..The IO was again questioned by the court on the aspect of verification of the MLC as the documents stated that the complainant had suffered injuries..The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State strongly opposed the bail application, arguing the allegations were serious..“Since the investigation is completed qua the accused and no other evidence has been placed on record to show that the accused is in possession of Stridhan articles, accused is granted bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs 50,000 with one local surety of like amount,” the court finally ordered..The accused was directed to cooperate in the investigation and appear before the court concerned whenever summoned. He was also asked not contact the complainant or visit her under any circumstance besides being ordered not to change his address or leave Delhi without the court's permission.