Jetinder Sharma vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 4907 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of order: 30th November, 2009

+      BAIL APPLN. 349/2009

       JETINDER SHARMA               ..... Petitioner
                    Through Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Sr.Advocate
                    with Mr.Tarun Sharma, Advocate.

                      versus

       STATE                   ..... Respondent

Through Mr.K.K.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.R.C.Pathak, Advocate for the complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES

3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES

V.K.JAIN,J (ORAL)

1. This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. The FIR in

this case was lodged by one Sanjay Sharma. He alleged that on

4.2.2009, when he was sitting in his office at Savita Vihar along

with Anil Grover, Brijlal, Sandeep Chaudhary and Rajesh Jain,

Jeetu Pandit who runs cable line and in cable and has business

rivalry with them, came there at about 9:15 p.m. along with 8-9

boys. They were holding baseball bat, iron rod, pipe, wooden stick

etc. in their hands. They broke the glass and plastic door of the

office and they gave beating to them. It has been further alleged

that Jeetu also took away the cash bag from the hands of Brij Lal

Sharma which contained Rs.2 lakhs.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner has cooperated with the Investigating Officer

by giving replies to his questions in terms of order of the Court

dated 22.9.2009. The petitioner has placed on record a true copy

of the questions and answers given pursuant to the order dated

22.9.2009. He denied the allegation against him and stated that

CCN people themselves are having criminal bent of mind. The

answers have been given to the questions of the Investigating

Officer indicates that there was no cooperation of the petitioner as

such. Flat denial does not amount to rendering cooperation to the

Investigating Officer. According to the respondent, they need

custodial interrogation of the petitioner in order to ascertain the

names of those who had accompanied him and were involved in

the commission of the crime. The respondent has also to recover

the weapons which were used for giving injuries and the cash

which has been stolen from the hands of Brij Lal Sharma.

Therefore, the requirement of the respondent for custodial

interrogation of the petitioner cannot be said to be unjustified.

3. In Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1985 SC 969 the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail u/s 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. These situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other."

4. In Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. Commissioner of Customs

2001(3) AD (Delhi) 275 this Court declined anticipatory bail

as custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required. In

State Rep. by the CBI vs. Anil Sharma JT 1997 (7) SC 651 the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that effective investigation

of suspect is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many

useful informations and materials which would have been

concealed. It was further observed that success in such

interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that

he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order

during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation

in such a condition would be reduced to a mere ritual. The

Hon'ble Court rejected the argument that custodial

interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being

subjected to third degree methods, observing that such an

argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal

cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police

Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner

and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring

offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the FIR of

almost similar allegations was lodged by one Ganesh, who is also

from CCN group, against other persons. I am unable to appreciate

how that would show the incident in question did not take place.

The MLCs of the injured persons prima facie indicate that the

incident subject matter of the FIR did take place. The door of the

office of the complainant was found broken when the Investigating

Officer reached for investigation.

6. It was also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that cases have been registered against Sandeep Chaudhary, one

of the persons alleged to have been injured in this incident. Even

if that be so, that by itself would not indicate that no incident as

alleged in the FIR took place. Sandeep Chaudhary was not the

only person injured in the incident and the FIR was not lodged by

him but by one Sanjay Sharma. Keeping in view the facts and

circumstances of the case, no grant for anticipatory bail has been

made out.

BAIL APPLN. 349/2009 stands dismissed.

V.K. JAIN,J NOVEMBER 30, 2009 'sn'/RS