The complainant and the state had opposed the accused’s bail plea saying that he might intimidate or influence the witnesses or destroy evidence against him if granted bail.
Recently, a Delhi court granted bail to a government officer facing rape charges, citing the lack of potential evidence tampering or witness influence.
During the bail application, the accused’s legal representative argued that the complainant filed the current First Information Report (FIR) with the intention of extorting money from the accused, given his status as a government servant.
Advocate Sahil Rao, representing the complainant, contested the bail request, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations. Rao additionally mentioned that the accused had allegedly threatened to circulate compromising photographs of the victim.
Rao also said that the accused might intimidate or influence the witnesses or destroy evidence against him. The complainant also alleged that she was threatened by the accused’s father in the court premises on October 30, 2023. Rao produced CCTV footage before the court.
The additional public prosecutor for the state also opposed the bail plea stating that the accused might threaten the witnesses if granted bail as the investigation is at its initial stage. It was also alleged that one aged family member of the accused had threatened and tried to influence the victim. The investigating officer said that the accused’s custody is required for the collection of his call detail records.
On November 9, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court) Shama Gupta dismissed these contentions, stating that the assertions of potential evidence tampering by the accused were merely verbal statements lacking support from independent witnesses.