High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 05 DEL CK 0425

NARESH KUMAR Vsc STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Delhi High Court · Decided on 29 May 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
BAIL APPLN. 1099 OF 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

33 paragraphs · 642 words

BAIL APPLN. 1099/2018 & Crl.M.(Bail) 787/2018 (for interim bail)

1.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.14/2018 under Sections 387/323/454/427/354D/506/509/120B/34/365 IPC, Police Station Special Cell

(SB).

2.

The petitioner is a Sub Inspector. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner in connivance with the relatives of the complainant

had committed an offence of house trespass, assault, abduction, threatening to kill to commit extortion in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to

coerce the complainant into giving up her rights in a property which has been gifted to her by her mother.

3.

The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner was the Investigating Officer in an FIR against the complainant and had obtained

warrants of her arrest from court. Thereafter, the petitioner in connivance with the other private individuals had broken into the house of the lawyer of

the complainant, where she was awaiting the outcome of a petition filed by her in this Court. It is contended that the petitioner, despite becoming

aware of the statement given by the Public Prosecutor before this Court that no coercive action would be taken against the complainant in the subject

FIR, sought to forcefully execute the warrants against the complainant.

4.

Learned senior standing counsel appearing for the State submits that, as per the investigation conducted, the petitioner was made aware of the

statement given by the Public Prosecutor before this Court, which fact was even confirmed by him prior to seeking to execute the warrants. He

submits that the petitioner despite becoming aware of the interim protection granted to the complainant, forcefully, in contravention of the instructions

given by his superior officers, sought to execute the warrants. Learned counsel further submits that an internal inquiry was conducted and the report

came adverse to the petitioner and accordingly an appropriate departmental inquiry has been initiated and petitioner has already been suspended.

5.

Learned senior standing counsel, under instructions from Inspector Mukesh Kumar, Special Cell, who is present in Court, submits that insofar as the

role of the petitioner is concerned in the subject FIR, the investigation qua the petitioner is complete.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner is not the only officer involved in the

larger conspiracy with the relatives of the complainant. Learned counsel submits that he is representing the complainant before a Division Bench and

is taking his remedies before the Division Bench with regard to the alleged involvement of other officers and other individuals involved in larger

conspiracy against the complainant.

7.

The petitioner has been in custody for nearly 50 days. The investigation qua the role of the petitioner in the subject FIR is already complete. Since

the investigation already stands transferred to the Special Cell, and is being monitored by senior officers and regular reports are being submitted to the

Division Bench of this court, there is no likelihood of the petitioner influencing the course of investigation.

8.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, since the investigation qua the role of the petitioner is compete and petitioner has already been

incarcerated for nearly 50 days and there is no likelihood of the petitioner influencing the course of investigation, I am of the view that the petitioner is

entitled to grant of regular bail.

9.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like

amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, if not required in any other case. The petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice either the

investigation or the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

10.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

11.

Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.