Court grants anticipatory bail to businessman Ashok Mittal, accused of allegedly criminally assaulting woman employee

New Delhi [India], April 29 : Patiala House Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to businessman Ashok Mittal in a case of an alleged altercation and criminal assault on a woman employee. Mittal is the chairman of Hotel Royal Plaza.

The court granted anticipatory bail to Mittal after noting that he has already joined the investigation and the allegations are a matter for trial. The court also noted that accsued is 80 years of age and suffering from ailments.

The offences alleged against the accused are only punishable up to a maximum imprisonment of seven years. However, while granting bail, the court has imposed strict conditions on Mittal.

An FIR has been lodged in the Police Station, Connaught Place, on a complaint filed by a former employee of Ashok Mittal.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Deepti Devesh granted anticipatory bail to Ashok Mittal on April 27 and directed that he shall be released on Anticipatory bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. One lakh and one surety in the like amount furnished before the investigation officer/Station House Officer (SHO).

The Court has imposed the condition, including that the Accused and his family members or their proxies, like employees, shall not contact the prosecutrix. The court noted that it had been alleged by the prosecutrix in her statement under section 183 BNSS that family members and other employees of the accused had tried to contact her after the alleged incident.

The court has also imposed a condition that the accused shall not travel outside the country without prior permission of the court. The Accused shall join the investigation when required.

The court noted that there does appear to be some corroborative material in the form of CCTV footage, qua allegations made in the FIR.

"However, there is no requirement for this court to go into an in-depth analysis of the nature of the allegations disclosed in the FIR or corroborative material available in CCTV Footage in this case, as the same would be decided on merits during trial," ASJ Deepti Devesh said in the order of April 27.

The court further said that at this stage, the court also does not have to decide the question of who provoked whom, which is a disputed question of fact. Suffice to say that for purposes of the present application, the offences alleged against the accused are only punishable up to a maximum imprisonment of seven years."

The court also referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI 2026, wherein it is stated that, despite the existence of circumstances warranting arrest, arrest shall not be made unless it is absolutely warranted. Bail is the rule, and only in exceptional cases should the accused be arrested.

"Furthermore, the identity of the accused is well established in the present case. The place of residence of the accused is also well known. The accused has already joined the investigation in this case. Having noted the above facts and settled law, it is also the duty of the court to ensure a balance between competing rights of the parties before it," ASJ Devesh held.

The court also addressed the apprehension of counsel for the victim and put strict conditions, saying, "This court can not ignore the fact that the victim was working for the accused till 09.04.2026, at least. The accused was not only the immediate senior of the victim but is the Chairman and CEO of the organisation for which the victim was working and therefore, occupied an extremely high position of authority in respect of the victim. The place of offence is admittedly the residence/workplace of the accused, wherein the accused has numerous employees available at his beck and call."

Thus, there is a possibility on account of the obvious power imbalance in favour of the accused that the prosecutrix may be correct in her apprehension of being threatened by the accused, if relief is granted to him today, the court said.

Senior advocate Geeta Luthra alongwith advocates Prashansika Thakur, Prasann Parashar and Rishabh Dahiya, appeared for Ashok Mittal.

Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra submitted that the accused has now joined the investigation and is cooperating, and therefore, the present application ought to be allowed.

She argued that the CCTV footage of the alleged incident also shows that the victim herself has adopted an aggressive attitude towards the accused and was behaving in a manner so as to provoke the accused into a fit of rage on the day of the alleged incident of 09.04.2026.

It was further argued that the CCTV Footage of security staff and the victim at the time of exiting the premises of the place of offence, which is the Hotel Royal Plaza, shows that the victim and the security staff are smiling and talking amiably with each other, which suggests that some conspiracy exists between the victim and other employees to malign the accused in the present case.

The investigation officer submitted that custodial interrogation of the accused is not required. This submission was opposed by Additional Public Prosecutor (A)PP, stating that the State is not bound by the report of the IO that no custodial interrogation of the accused is required.

He further submitted that after looking at various CCTV footage, approximately 4-5 in number, at different areas of places of offence at Hotel Royal Plaza on the date of the alleged offence of 09.04.2026, it can be clearly seen that the accused has behaved in an aggressive manner with the prosecutrix and that he can be seen aggressively grabbing hold of the hand of the prosecutrix at one point.

Senior Advocate on behalf of the prosecutrix had stated that the prosecutrix is under threat from the accused, not only on account of the offence committed but also because of the huge disparity in the status of the accused and the victim.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor