Court Reprimands Delhi Police For Taking Contradictory Stand On Bail Plea In Rape Case, Says Officers’ Conduct Irresponsible
A Court has reprimanded the Delhi Police for taking contradictory stand while opposing an anticipatory bail plea of a man in a rape case.Observing that conduct of the 'deputed' Investigating Officer and SHO of Bhajan Pura police station appears to be irresponsible, Additional Sessions Judge Pawan Kumar Matto directed that a copy of the order be sent to Delhi Police Commissioner “to do...
A Court has reprimanded the Delhi Police for taking contradictory stand while opposing an anticipatory bail plea of a man in a rape case.
Observing that conduct of the 'deputed' Investigating Officer and SHO of Bhajan Pura police station appears to be irresponsible, Additional Sessions Judge Pawan Kumar Matto directed that a copy of the order be sent to Delhi Police Commissioner “to do some needful” to improve the performance of the two officers.
“For the best reasons known to the Delhi Police, the Police is taking contradictory stand as on the one side, the chargesheet has already been filed in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate that too without arrest to this applicant/accused and on the other hand, when this applicant/accused approached to this court for getting relief of anticipatory bail U/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C., this application is opposed, so, the conduct of this deputed IO SI Shalini and SHO of PS Bhajan Pura appears to be irresponsible,” the court observed.
The observations were made while granting anticipatory bail to one Parvez Alam in an FIR registered under sections 354, 354A, 498A, 323, 406, 506, 509, 377 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Alam’s counsel earlier submitted before the court that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he had nothing to do with the offences alleged to have been committed by him.
The counsel contended that the chargesheet has already been filed in the matter before the Metropolitan Magistrate, without his arrest. It was also submitted that the accused will abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by court.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State submitted that he has no objection for grant of anticipatory bail.
However, the court noted that reply filed to the application reveals that IO Shalini "has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of anticipatory bail".
During the hearing, the Court questioned the officer for the stand in the reply, in light of the fact that chargesheet was filed without arrest of the accused during investigation.
Shalini told the court that she is a 'deputed I.O.' and that the I.O. dealing with the case is "on long leave". The Court further noted that the reply filed in the court has been "forwarded by" SHO Bhajan Pura, where the FIR was registered against the accused.
The Court observed that since a chargesheet has already been filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate and the accused was not arrested during investigation, “as per the law laid down in the case of Court of its motion Vs. CBI, 109(2003) DLT 494, this applicant/accused, Parvez Alam is ordered to be released on bail”.
Case Title: State versus Parvez Alam
Dated: 10.01.2023