AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
Both the applications seek regular bail in FIR No. 148/2022, dated 22.07.2022, under Sections 370/366B/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”), and Sections 3/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter “ITPA”), registered at PS Crime Branch, Delhi.
The said petitions have been taken up together since they emanate from the same FIR bearing No. 148/2022.
Charges were framed against the petitioners in these matters under Sections 120B/366B/370 of the IPC and Sections 3/4/5 of the ITPA by the Ld. ASJ (FTC)-02, South, Saket Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 18.12.2024, which has been annexed as Annexure P-8 in Bail Appln. No. 1858/2026 and Annexure A-5 in Bail Appln. 2931/2026.
The petitioner in Bail Appln. 1858/2026 submits that the present case (FIR No. 148/2022) is a case of double jeopardy falling foul of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, because the victims are the same as in FIR No. 160/2022, registered at PS Chanakyapuri, Delhi, in which also the petitioner (in Bail Appln. 1858/2026) is arrayed as an accused. The said plea is unmerited.
Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, or double jeopardy, requires a prior conviction/acquittal of the accused. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been convicted yet in the other FIR (bearing No. 160/2022, registered at PS Chanakyapuri, Delhi), which is being cited to allege double jeopardy.
Supreme Court’s observations on ‘double jeopardy’ in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India, (1954) 1 SCC 586 can be noted with regard to this plea:
“7.Although these were the materials which formed the background of the guarantee of the fundamental right given in Article 20(2) of the Constitution, the ambit and contents of the guarantee, as this Court pointed out in the case referred to above, are much narrower than those of the common law rule in England or the doctrine of “double jeopardy” in the American Constitution. Article 20(2) of our Constitution, it is to be noted, does not contain the principle of “autrefois acquit” at all. It seems that our Constitution-makers did not think it necessary to raise one part of the common law rule to the level of a fundamental right and thus make it immune from legislative interference. This has been left to be regulated by the general law of the land. In order to enable a citizen to invoke the protection of clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution, there must have been both prosecution and punishment in respect of the same offence. The words “prosecuted and punished” are to be taken not distributively so as to mean prosecuted or punished. Both the factors must co-exist in order that the operation of the clause may be attracted. The position is also different under the American Constitution. There the prohibition is not against a second punishment but against the peril in which a person may be placed by reason of a valid indictment being presented against him, before a competent court, followed by proper arraignment and plea and a lawful impanelling of the jury. It is not necessary to have a verdict at all.” (emphasis supplied)
It is also noticed that the Ld. ASJ (FTC)-02, South, Saket Courts, Delhi has rejected the plea of double jeopardy while framing charges vide order dated 18.12.2024. The same has been annexed by the parties as Annexure P-8 in Bail Appln. No. 1858/2026 and Annexure A-5 in Bail Appln. 2931/2026. Further, that order has not been challenged. As such, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission.
However, there are other factors which impel this Court to grant bail to the petitioners.
It is pointed out that in FIR No. 160/2022, registered at PS Chanakyapuri, Delhi, the petitioner in Bail Appln. No. 1858/2026 has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2025. The other co-accused persons have also been granted bail therein.
Further, in FIR No. 148/2022, with which the present matter relates, the other co-accused persons, viz. Chande Sahani @ Raju, Rajbeer, and Mohd. Arup, have been granted bail. The orders in this regard have been filed as Annexures-14, 15 and 17 in Bail Appln. No. 2931/2026.
During the course of hearing, learned APP also drew the attention of this Court to the order dated 17.07.2026, passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 15849/2025, pertaining to a co-accused Mohd. Arup in FIR No. 148/2022, whereby the Supreme Court has granted bail. The same has been annexed as Annexure A-17 in Bail Appln. No. 2931/2026. This Court relies on this order for the limited purpose of noting that the co-accused has been released on bail.
Crucially also, what weighs with this Court is the fact that none of the victims has named the petitioners.
Ld. ASJ (FTC)-02, South, Saket Courts, Delhi, in order dated 18.12.2024 for framing charges noted:
“As per the IO, prosecution witnesses cited at Serial No.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 […] are untraceable and they have probably absconded to their country of origin. The above witnesses were summoned on 07.05.2024. As per the report received on 18.07.2024 the above mentioned victims remained unserved through the office of DCP concerned. In view of the same and in view of the submissions made by the IO, the above mentioned prosecution witnesses stands dropped from the list of witnesses.”
It also transpires that even the witnesses who are still available have not named these petitioners in any manner.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, viz. the bail granted to co-accused, the fact that none of the victims has named the petitioners, and the fact that the petitioners have been in custody for more than two years, this Court admits the applicants to regular bail on furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:
The applicants/accused shall not leave NCT of Delhi or travel out of the country without prior permission of the Trial Court;
The applicants/accused shall provide their permanent address to the Trial Court, and also the address where they will be residing during the pendency of the case;
The applicants/accused shall intimate the Investigating Officer (IO) and file an affidavit before the Trial Court regarding any change in their residential address;
The applicants/accused shall furnish their mobile number to the Investigating Officer (IO)/Station House Officer (SHO) concerned, which shall be kept in working condition at all times. The mobile number shall be kept switched on, with location services enabled at all times, and the same shall be shared with the IO. The mobile number shall not be changed without prior intimation to the IO during the pendency of the trial;
The applicants/accused shall report to the IO as and when called for by the IO.
The applicants/accused shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant and his family members;
The applicants/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
The applicants/accused shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing;
The applicants/accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity during the period of bail; and
The applicants/accused shall report to the concerned SHO, on the first Monday of every month at 11:00 a.m. and be discharged by 12:00 noon, after recording his presence and completion of the necessary formalities.
The applications are disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
The Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial.
It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall neither influence the trial nor be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance.