The seriousness of allegations is not the only factor in deciding bail and the Constitution’s Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) is violated when undertrial prisoners are kept in jail for an indefinite period, a Delhi court said in its order granting bail to former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and his aide Vinod Tomar.
The court called the allegations of sexual harassment that six wrestlers have levelled against the two serious. “The seriousness of the allegations, no doubt, is one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but it is not the only test or the factor to decide the same,” said additional chief metropolitan magistrate Harjeet Singh Jaspal in the order, the detailed copy of which was released on Friday.
The court said the law of the land can neither be pulled in the favour of the victims nor can it tilt in that of the accused.
Singh, a six-time ruling Bharatiya Janata Party Member of Parliament, and Tomar were granted bail on Thursday on a personal bond of ₹25,000 each as the Delhi Police neither opposed nor supported it.
The court earlier on Tuesday granted Singh and Tomar two-day interim bail citing the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Satendra Kumar Antil case. The top court observed in that case that bail has to be decided without the arrest of an accused or granting interim bail until regular bail is decided in matters related to offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. It will also be applicable to matters in which charge sheets are filed without the arrest or the accused has cooperated in the probe.
{{/usCountry}}The court earlier on Tuesday granted Singh and Tomar two-day interim bail citing the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Satendra Kumar Antil case. The top court observed in that case that bail has to be decided without the arrest of an accused or granting interim bail until regular bail is decided in matters related to offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. It will also be applicable to matters in which charge sheets are filed without the arrest or the accused has cooperated in the probe.
{{/usCountry}}In his detailed order, Jaspal recorded the additional public prosecutor’s submission that sufficient conditions should be imposed on Singh and Tomar so that they do not directly or indirectly approach the complainants to influence them.
The court took note of the submission of the lawyer for the complainants opposing the bail citing Singh’s position as an influential person.
It considered the submissions of advocate Rajiv Mohan, who appeared for Singh and Tomar, pleading for bail as the charge sheet against his clients was filed without arrest. Mohan expressed the willingness of his clients to abide by all the conditions and said that they will not be a threat to anyone. He added his clients would appear before the court whenever called.
The Delhi Police registered the case against Singh and Tomar on April 28 after the Supreme Court’s intervention and filed the 1599-page charge sheet on June 15. The trial court on July 7 took cognisance of the charge sheet.
Singh has been charged under Indian Penal Code (IPC)’s sections 354 (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty), 354A (sexual harassment), and 354D (stalking). Charges have been framed against Tomar under IPC sections 354, 354A, 109 (abetment), and 506 (criminal intimidation).
Singh is facing another case involving a minor, who changed her statement before a magistrate. On June 15, police filed a 552-page cancellation report in the second case. A Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act court has sought a response from the minor and her family on whether they have any objections to the report. This case has been listed for hearing on August 1.