Shamsher Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 1278 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 11.02.2015

BAIL APPLN.272/2015

SHAMSHER SINGH                                      ..... Petitioner

                             versus



STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                               ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner    : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent    : Ms. Isha Khanna, APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                 JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

CRL.M.A.2049/2015

The exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

BAIL APPLN.272/2015

1. The present is an application under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR

No.544/2014, under Sections 365/388/384/34 IPC at Police Station North

Rohini.

2. The applicant is stated to be ASI in Haryana Police and was last

posted in Karnal. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the

following grounds:-

Firstly, he has submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR

registered on 09.08.2014. Secondly, he has urged that the present FIR

is a counterblast to FIR No.466/2014 registered on 26.06.2014 in

Police Station Karnal, which was registered on the complaint of one

Isha Gupta against the complainant in the present FIR. Thirdly, it has

been submitted by counsel for the applicant that one co-accused

namely Rana Pratap Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by this

Court on 14.01.2015. Lastly, it has been submitted on behalf of

counsel for the applicant that the applicant was present at Munak

Chowki in Karnal on the date of the incident as is evident by two

affidavits annexed to the present application.

3. The facts giving rise to the present FIR are that on 09.06.2014 at about

1:00 PM Isha Gupta and Vikas Bansal are stated to have approached the

complainant in his office at Rohini asking him to extend a loan of Rs.15-20

Lakhs. It is also stated that immediately thereafter four other persons came

into the complainant's office out of whom two belonged to Sikh

community. The complainant states that at gun point they took his phone,

assaulted him and took him to Panipat in Scorpio vehicle bearing Haryana

registration number. The complainant further alleges that the said

individuals took him to Panipat Court and forced him to sign transfer

documents in respect of the Toyota Fortuner Car bearing registration No.DL

7CG 6052. It is further alleged that they forcibly took his photographs in

Panipat Court premises and also removed his diamond ring. The

complainant was thereafter dropped at the Panipat bus stand.

4. On behalf of the prosecution, Ms. Isha Khanna, learned APP submits

that the applicant was physically present at the time of the offence in Delhi

with his other associates when the complainant of this case was abducted,

detained and thereafter extortion was done. In this behalf, attention of this

Court has been drawn to the call details record of the present applicant.

Prima facie they clearly indicate that the present applicant was present in

Delhi near the place of the incident at the time of occurrence. The

prosecution has further highlighted the fact that although the applicant has

been repeatedly asked to join the investigation by the Investigating Officer

but the former has not joined the investigation. Lastly, it has been urged

that non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant.

5. I have gone through the order passed by this Court on 14.01.2015 and

considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicant as well as the

prosecution. In my view, the case of Rana Pratap Singh stands on a

different footing and no parity can be claimed at this stage. Furthermore,

the co-accused Rana Pratap Singh is not stated to be a police officer

belonging to a disciplined force. Being a police officer, the applicant

cannot be expected to conduct himself in such a criminal and cavalier

manner contrary to the requirements of his office. Keeping in mind the

facts that the applicant was physically present at the time of abduction and

extortion and despite having been suspended from service has not joined the

investigation of this case even once, I see no merit in the application.

6. Coming to the submissions made on behalf of counsel for the

applicant, that the present FIR is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by Isha

Gupta, it is observed that the complaint of the present applicant was made

prior to the case lodged by Isha Gupta on 10.06.2014 and it was kept

pending by the Delhi Police for inquiry and subsequently a case was

registered only on 09.08.2014. Therefore, this submission on behalf of the

applicant does not hold any water. I see no reason to enlarge the applicant

on pre-arrest bail. In my view custodial interrogation of the present

applicant is necessary for fair and complete investigation of this case.

Furthermore, recovery is yet to be effected from the applicant and TIP is

also required to be conducted.

7. Consequently, the present application is devoid of merit and is

dismissed accordingly.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

FEBRUARY 11, 2015 dn