Delhi court grants interim bail to couple accused of racially discriminating against three women from the North-East

A Delhi court granted 30-day interim bail to a couple accused of racially discriminating against three women during a neighborhood argument.

A Delhi court on Wednesday granted 30-day interim bail to a couple accused of racially discriminating against three women from northeastern states during a neighbourhood argument in south Delhi’s Malviya Nagar earlier this month.

They were released on a personal bond of ₹25,000 and a surety of the like amount. (Representative photos)

Additional sessions judge Samar Vishal of the Saket courts held that instead of granting regular bail to the accused at this stage, an interim bail for a tentative period of 30 days is being granted to observe the couple’s conduct. They were released on a personal bond of ₹25,000 and a surety of the like amount.

The court said, “a perusal of the video recording placed on record reveals that the situation had assumed a degree of hostility which carried the potential to escalate further.”

The accused persons, the court emphasised, were seen holding sticks during the confrontation and their behaviour reflected considerable aggression towards the victims.

The court said, “It must be remembered that when a person assails a fellow citizen on the basis of caste, tribe, region or lineage, the injury inflicted is not merely personal but strikes at the very foundation of fraternity which binds the citizens of our great Republic together”.

The judge noted that despite the reprehensible nature of the conduct by the accused persons, no useful purpose would be served by their continued incarceration at this stage. The court further underlined that appropriate safeguards need to be imposed on the accused to ensure that they do not hamper the investigation, shall not intimidate witnesses and conduct themselves in a manner befitting the law.

During the interim relief, the court imposed multiple conditions on the couple, including that they shall abide by their undertaking that they shall vacate the premises where they presently reside on or before the end of this month to avoid any further confrontation with the victims.

The court also stated that the accused persons shall not contact, intimidate or threaten any of the victims or witnesses so as to create a sense of fear and apprehension in the minds of the witnesses.

The court made it clear that any infraction, reported by the victims or the investigating officer (IO), will lead to immediate cancellation of the bail. The court also directed the IO to complete the investigation within two months in accordance with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.

The court has listed the matter for hearing again on April 15 for further consideration of their regular bail. Separately, the court also allowed an application moved by police, seeking to match the voice samples of the couple through forensic examination.

The couple, Harsh Singh and his wife Ruby Jain, were arrested on February 25 for allegedly hurling racial slurs at the three women from Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur living in a rented flat in the same building in Malviya Nagar.

According to police, the verbal scuffle started when the three women were having an electrical installation done at their house, which led to dust falling on the house of the accused. The incident was reported almost a week later, after a video pertaining to the incident went viral on social media.

A case was registered against the couple under sections 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 351 (criminal intimidation), 3(5) (common intention) and 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc, and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Sections under SC/ST Act were later invoked against Ruby Jain.

In their bail pleas, moved through advocate Gaurav, they argued that the case arose out of a sudden neighbourhood altercation which could not be termed a premeditated offence. They added that they had already apologised for the incident on social media.