New Delhi,  A Delhi Court has granted bail to a man accused of outraging the modesty of a woman, who was working at the reservation counter of a four-star hotel in the national capital in December 2021.

"Investigation qua him already completed and accused/applicant is no more required for his custodial interrogation. Therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the accused behind the bar," Vacation judge Sanjay Khanagwal of the Patiala House Court said in the order dated June 22 and allowed the bail to the accused on furnishing Rs 25,000 with one surety in the like amount.

As per the case, the accused Neeraj Kumar along with co-accused Shamshudeen alias Sohail and others came to the club in the hotel, as the club was not meant for a single entry, they forcibly tried to enter the club. "When the woman posted as a gate reservation officer refused to give them entry, the co-accused Sohail outraged the modesty of the complainant by pushing her on her chest and at the same time accused Neeraj has abused her," according to the FIR.

His counsel argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no evidence against him of commission of offence under Section 354 IPC (assault or use criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman).

He argued that there has been a delay in recording the statement, in which the complainant woman has improved her version. The main accused Sohail has not been arrested by the police deliberately as he has carried out some compromise with the complainant, the counsel argued further.

It is also submitted that it is a quarrel between partners in which the accused is made a scapegoat.

The counsel appeared for the woman and submitted that there is ample evidence of the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence as he is visible in clips of CCTV footage. He argued that the accused is a habitual offender and he has referred to his involvement in three other criminal matters.

After the submissions, the court observed that the cases are no more pending against him and two FIRs mentioned against the accused are old and there is nothing to show that accused has been habitually involved in criminal activities recently except the present FIR registered against him.