Regular bail warranted where co-accused were released, victims did not identify applicants, and custody exceeded two years.

The petitioners sought regular bail in FIR No. 148/2022, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi, for offences under Sections 370, 366B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Charges had been framed against them under the said provisions by the learned ASJ, South, Saket Courts, on 18 December 2024.

Abhay Kumar Yadav contended that the proceedings constituted double jeopardy because the victims were also involved in FIR No. 160/2022, registered at Police Station Chanakyapuri, in which he was an accused.

The Court noted that no conviction had been recorded in the other FIR and that the trial court had already rejected the double-jeopardy objection while framing charges; that order had not been challenged.

The Court also noted that the petitioners had remained in custody for more than two years, several co-accused had been granted bail, and none of the victims had named either petitioner.

Certain victim-witnesses were untraceable and had been dropped from the list of witnesses, while the remaining available witnesses had also not implicated the petitioners.

Whether the petitioners could invoke Article 20(2) of the Constitution on the ground that the victims were common to FIR No. 148/2022 and FIR No. 160/2022, despite there being no prior conviction or acquittal in the latter case?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail in view of the bail granted to co-accused, their prolonged custody, and the absence of identification or incriminating testimony by the victims?

The Court considered the offences under Sections 120B, 366B and 370 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITPA, as charged against the petitioners.

Article 20(2) of the Constitution embodies the protection against double jeopardy, but, as explained in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India, (1954) 1 SCC 586, its protection is attracted only where the accused has been both prosecuted and punished for the same offence; the words “prosecuted and punished” are cumulative, and Article 20(2) does not itself incorporate the rule of autrefois acquit.

In determining bail, the Court also considered parity with co-accused, the period of custody, the evidentiary position, and the likelihood of witness-related prejudice, subject to appropriate conditions securing the petitioners’ presence and preventing interference with the administration of justice.

The Court rejected the double-jeopardy contention because the petitioners had not been previously convicted or punished in FIR No. 160/2022; therefore, the essential requirements of Article 20(2), as stated in S.A. Venkataraman, were absent.

The Court further declined to revisit the issue because the trial court had already rejected the objection while framing charges and that order remained unchallenged.

Nevertheless, the Court found sufficient independent grounds for bail: co-accused in the present FIR had been granted bail, Abhay Kumar Yadav had also received bail in the connected FIR, the petitioners had spent over two years in custody, and none of the victims had named or implicated them.

The fact that some victims were untraceable and that the available witnesses had not identified the petitioners materially weighed in their favour.

They were directed to furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to conditions including remaining within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi without permission, furnishing and updating residential and mobile details, appearing before the Trial Court on every date, reporting to the Investigating Officer and the concerned SHO, not contacting or influencing witnesses, not tampering with evidence, and not engaging in criminal activity.

The Trial Court was requested to expedite the trial, and the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail applications and would not affect the merits of the trial.