Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Domestic Help Accused in Heinous Assault Case | Vicky Anand

New Delhi, February 19, 2024: The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, granted bail to Vicky Anand, a domestic help accused of being involved in a brutal assault case in which a victim’s genitals were allegedly dismembered. Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the case, noted that the applicant was not initially named in the First Information Report (FIR) and that the victim’s testimony had turned hostile, casting doubt on the allegations against the accused.

Background of the Case

The case stems from an FIR (No. 1088/2021) registered on December 23, 2021, at Police Station Rajouri Garden. The complainant/victim, in his initial statement, recounted a harrowing tale of abduction and torture by the family of his wife, Maneka. According to the FIR, the victim and Maneka were in a relationship and had eloped to Jaipur, where they got married in a temple on December 21, 2021. Upon returning to Delhi the next day, they informed Maneka’s family, who reacted with hostility and threats.

The prosecution alleged that on December 22, 2021, Maneka’s father, her uncle Bhanu, her brothers Abhishek and Raghav, and her brother-in-law Aman forcibly took the couple to their residence in Sagarpur. At the house, multiple family members, including Maneka’s uncle Anil, her mother Geeta, her grandmother Kaushalya, and her aunt Sandhya, allegedly participated in a brutal assault on the victim.

According to the FIR, the accused family members beat the victim with sticks and belts, with Maneka’s grandmother allegedly shouting that his genitals should be severed. It was claimed that Maneka’s uncle Bhanu then brought an axe and carried out the heinous act while others restrained the victim. Subsequently, the victim was allegedly dumped near the Sagarpur drain.

Legal Proceedings and Court Observations

Following the registration of the case, a chargesheet was filed, and the Trial Court, on May 3, 2023, framed charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 120B (criminal conspiracy), 365 (kidnapping), 367 (kidnapping with intent to cause grievous hurt), 307 (attempt to murder), 506 (criminal intimidation), 323/324 (causing hurt), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence).

During the trial, the prosecution relied on statements from the victim, Maneka, and the victim’s brother. The victim’s brother stated that the victim had informed him about the attack by Maneka’s family members. Additionally, Maneka, in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, corroborated aspects of the incident.

However, a significant turn occurred when the victim, while deposing before the Juvenile Justice Board on April 21, 2023, denied having made any complaint to the police. Further, in his statement before the Trial Court on November 25, 2023, he contradicted his earlier allegations, stating that four unidentified persons had misbehaved with his wife, leading to a quarrel. He claimed he was hit on the head with a flowerpot and lost consciousness. He further alleged that the police had obtained his signatures and thumb impressions on blank sheets of paper.

Key Factors Leading to Bail

Justice Amit Mahajan, in his judgment, acknowledged the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and observed that his latest testimony undermined the very foundation of the prosecution’s case. The court also noted that Vicky Anand, the applicant, was merely a domestic help at the residence of the primary accused and was not related to Maneka’s family.

Additionally, the applicant was not named in the FIR or in the initial chargesheet. His involvement was only established later through a supplementary chargesheet, which raised further doubts about his role in the crime. Furthermore, the court highlighted that Anand had no prior criminal antecedents and had been in judicial custody since April 29, 2022.

Bail Conditions Imposed

The court granted bail to Anand on furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to the following conditions:

  • He shall not directly or indirectly intimidate or tamper with evidence.
  • He shall not leave the National Capital Region (NCR) without prior court permission.
  • He must appear before the Trial Court whenever directed.
  • He shall provide and update his residential address with the investigating officer.
  • He must keep his mobile phone switched on at all times and share the number with law enforcement authorities.

The court also clarified that any future complaint, FIR, or adverse police report against the applicant could lead to the cancellation of his bail.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling highlights the complexities of criminal trials where witness testimonies change over time, significantly impacting the prosecution’s case. The judgment also reiterates that a mere association with accused persons does not automatically implicate an individual in a crime. The bail order, however, does not determine the applicant’s innocence and is limited to procedural fairness while the trial continues.

The case, which has garnered significant public and media attention due to its gruesome nature, continues to be under judicial scrutiny. The final verdict will depend on the trial proceedings and the overall assessment of the evidence by the court.