Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Phone Calls Should Not Be Recorded Except With The Consent Of The Individuals Concerned: Bail In Rape Case: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, granted anticipatory bail to Mehran Anjum Mir in a closely watched case involving allegations of rape under false pretenses of marriage. The court's decision, reserved on November 29, 2023, and pronounced on December 20, 2023, emphasizes the "right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution," a crucial factor in its deliberations.

The petitioner, Mehran Anjum Mir, was accused of non-consensual sexual intercourse, allegedly under the false promise of marriage. The case hinged on the contentious admissibility and authenticity of WhatsApp chats and call recordings between the petitioner and the complainant. Mr. Justice Bhatnagar noted the importance of privacy rights, citing the precedent in "Sanjay Pandey Versus Directorate of Enforcement" and highlighting that "phone calls should not be recorded except with the consent of the individuals concerned."

In his observation, Justice Bhatnagar stated, "The allegations against the petitioner are serious; however, the evidence presented, including WhatsApp chats and call records, raises questions about their admissibility and the authenticity that require careful examination during the trial."

The court also considered the delay in FIR registration and the nature of the relationship between the parties. Despite acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, the court found no substantial evidence to deny bail, especially given the petitioner's clean antecedents and the lack of necessity for further recovery in the case.

Represented by Mr. Akshay Chandra, Mr. Shubhanshu Singh, and Mr. Suman Kumar, the petitioner's case revolved around challenging the authenticity of the evidence against him and asserting the consensual nature of the relationship. The respondent, represented by Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State, argued based on the complainant's accusations and the evidence presented.

The grant of bail, however, comes with stringent conditions, including a prohibition against any criminal activity, no communication or contact with prosecution witnesses or the victim's family, and a mandate to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

Date of Decision: 20 December 2023

MEHRAN ANJUM MIR  VS STATE GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI    

 

Similar News