Seriousness of Offence Cannot Eclipse the Right to Liberty When Investigation Shows Stark Inconsistencies – Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail

“Contradictions in Allegations Cannot Override Personal Liberty”: Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling , where Justice Ravinder Dudeja underscored the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases involving serious allegations but contradictory evidence. The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, observing that despite the grave charges of sexual assault, the inconsistencies and omissions in the investigation could not be overlooked. The Court affirmed that “seriousness of the allegations alone cannot be a ground to deny anticipatory bail in the absence of cogent supporting material.”

The case originated from FIR No. 83/2025 registered at PS Bharat Nagar under Sections 351(2), 79, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, following a complaint by the prosecutrix alleging threats and physical assault by Arpit Mishra and a co-accused. Subsequently, on the basis of statements recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the charge of gang rape under Section 70 BNS was also added.

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Maninder Singh, challenged the FIR as a product of civil property disputes and pointed out glaring contradictions in the timeline and nature of the accusations.

The core issue before the Court was whether the contradictions and procedural lapses in the prosecution’s case warranted the protection of anticipatory bail, despite the nature of the offences.

Justice Dudeja dissected the case meticulously and observed: “A comparative perusal of the initial complaint, FIR, and prosecutrix’s statement under Section 183 BNSS reveals stark contradictions. The FIR does not disclose any allegation of sexual assault or rape, whereas such allegations appear for the first time in the 183 statement.”

The Court noted that the prosecutrix’s own brother’s complaint was riddled with placeholders like “(Insert time)”, suggesting fabrication or afterthought. The absence of any immediate medical examination, no PCR call, and the delayed naming of the accused further weakened the credibility of the complaint.

The Court invoked Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, reaffirming that: “The nature of the accusation has to be balanced with the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty.”

On the prosecution’s side, the State cited the seriousness of the allegations and past criminal antecedents of the petitioner, but the Court decisively rejected these as insufficient grounds for denial of bail without solid corroborative evidence.

Justice Dudeja highlighted the judiciary’s duty to protect personal liberty and avoid unnecessary incarceration, especially when investigative lapses surface:

“While deciding bail in serious criminal cases, a holistic evaluation of multiple factors is essential… the overall desirability of granting bail must be weighed against the potential threat to fair trial and public interest.”

In recognizing the deliberate omissions by the Investigating Officer and inconsistencies in the complainant’s narrative, the Court made a significant remark:

“Although, she claimed during video conferencing that Investigating Officer incorrectly recorded her statement, her educational background suggests she was fully capable of asserting her position.”

This observation not only questioned the prosecutrix’s delayed allegations but also pointed to possible misuse of legal provisions in civil disputes.

Further, the Court referred to precedents such as B.N. John v. State of U.P. and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, reiterating that omissions of crucial facts and uncorroborated improvements in allegations warrant judicial caution.

Granting anticipatory bail, the Court imposed stringent conditions, directing the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety, prohibiting any direct or indirect contact with the prosecutrix or her family, and mandating full cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

Justice Dudeja concluded: “Mere apprehension of non-cooperation cannot override the principle of ‘bail, not jail’. The law leans in favour of liberty, particularly where the prosecution’s version is inconsistent.”

The judgment clearly distinguished between the nature of allegations and the evidentiary substance, emphasizing the paramount importance of safeguarding individual liberty.

A Judicial Endorsement of Fair Process

The decision of the Delhi High Court serves as a reminder that criminal law cannot be weaponized in civil disputes, and personal liberty must not be sacrificed at the altar of unproven allegations. The Court’s careful balancing of the competing interests of investigation and fundamental rights reiterates the constitutional mandate to protect individuals from wrongful incarceration.

Date of Decision: 17th July, 2025