The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to businessman Raghav Kapoor, accused of theft and assault by his ex-live-in partner. The court has directed police to file a fresh status report after examining call records and CCTV footage.
Court Grants Interim Protection
The Delhi High Court on Monday granted interim protection from coercive action to a businessman accused of theft, trespass during the night, and voluntarily causing hurt to his former live-in partner.
An FIR has been registered at Roop Nagar Police Station based on a complaint filed by the woman. The High Court is hearing the anticipatory bail plea of Raghav Kapoor.
Justice Tejas Karia granted interim protection to Kapoor till the next date of hearing, subject to his joining the investigation as and when required by the investigating officer.
Meanwhile, the court directed the Delhi Police to file a fresh status report containing details of the call detail records (CDRs) of the mobile phones involved in the case. The matter has been listed for hearing on July 1.
Court Orders Probe into Electronic Evidence
"In the meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant, subject to his joining the investigation as per the directions of the Investigating Officer and fully cooperating and providing the information sought by the Investigating Officer," the bench ordered on June 22.
During the hearing, the court considered the status report filed by the investigating officer opposing Kapoor's anticipatory bail plea.
Justice Karia observed, "There are two versions of the incident available from the applicant as well as the complainant's side. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the call records of the mobile phones of the applicant, the applicant's mother, the complainant and the complainant's mother."
The court further said that it was also necessary to corroborate the CCTV footage with the version of events presented by the applicant in the present application.
Justice Tejas Karia said, "Therefore, to consider the present application, a fresh status report must be filed after conducting a thorough investigation of the electronic evidence available with the Investigating Officer."
The High Court directed that the applicant shall join the investigation on the date and time specified by the investigating officer and provide all information and details, including the mobile handsets of the applicant and his mother.
"After verifying the call records available in the mobile handsets of the applicant, the applicant's mother, the complainant and the complainant's mother, and also verifying the CCTV footage of the incident, the Investigating Officer shall file a fresh status report before the next date of hearing," Justice Karia ordered on June 22.
The Accused's Version of Events
Senior Advocate Amit Chaddha, along with advocates Latika Malhotra and Mridul Bakshi, appeared for Raghav Kapoor.
It was submitted that the version of events narrated by the complainant in the FIR was entirely incorrect and that the applicant and the complainant had been in a long-standing consensual relationship and had lived together in a live-in relationship in Dubai.
It was further submitted that both the applicant and the complainant returned to India and started a business venture together. The counsel relied upon photographs to establish the previous relationship between the two.
The senior counsel further submitted that due to certain misunderstandings, the applicant and the complainant had stopped communicating with each other and had blocked each other's phone numbers.
He further submitted that on April 21, 2026, at about 9:45 pm, the complainant's mother called the applicant's mother and requested that the applicant visit their residence so that the disputes between the parties could be amicably resolved.
It was also submitted that the applicant visited the complainant's residence with the bona fide intention of resolving the disputes and misunderstandings between them. The counsel further submitted that it was during this visit that the alleged incident took place.
Prosecution Opposes Bail Plea
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), however, submitted the status report detailing the incident that allegedly took place on April 22, 2026, and outlined the grounds for opposing the grant of anticipatory bail.
The APP opposed the anticipatory bail plea, stating that the investigation was still at an initial stage and that the applicant's conduct raised serious concerns regarding the safety of the complainant and her family.
The status report further stated that the allegedly stolen jewellery was yet to be recovered from the applicant and that custodial interrogation was therefore necessary. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
