Jeetu vs State NCT Of Delhi

The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 619/2026 of PS New Ashok Nagar for offence under Section 74/75 of BNS.

Broadly speaking, allegations against the accused/applicant, as culled out of the FIR, are as follows. The accused/applicant is a friend of elder brother of the prosecutrix, so he was aware that she is unemployed and looking for job. On 11.09.2026, the accused/applicant induced her to accompany him to hotel Park Inn for a job interview for the post of Receptionist. After taking her to a room in the hotel, the accused/applicant tried to rape her, so she shouted but he threw her on the bed. Feeling scared, she immediately called up her sister but the accused/applicant snatched her phone and disconnected the same. Somehow, she saved herself and ran out. Two persons in the hotel saved her and she returned home, after which she lodged the complaint with the police.

Against the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that no incident, as alleged ever happened and he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of his enmity with brother of the prosecutrix. It is submitted by learned counsel that despite having mobile phone, the prosecutrix opted not to call PCR but her sister, which creates suspicion. It is also submitted that no custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant is required. Learned counsel for accused/applicant also submits that in view of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offence, he cannot be arrested.

Learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Shweta strongly opposes the anticipatory bail application on the ground of gravity of offence. Learned APP has also shown me the CCTV footage of the hotel depicting the prosecutrix running out to save herself, with her pants slightly pulled down and followed by the accused/applicant. Besides that, the learned APP has also placed before me the transcripts of various phone calls made by the accused/applicant to the family members of the prosecutrix in which he is trying to pressurize them so that the prosecutrix withdraws her complaint.

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits in rejoinder that the phone numbers from where those calls were being made to the family members of the prosecutrix are yet to be verified by the IO.

Learned APP submits that non-bailable warrants have already been issued against the accused/applicant since he has not been responding to the notice to join investigation.

Considering the overall circumstances described above, coupled with the CCTV footage mentioned above and the gravity of offence of attempted rape, for which the investigation is pending and act of the accused/applicant to pressurize the prosecutrix to withdraw her complaint, I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

Therefore, the anticipatory bail application and the accompanying