Jalandhar Shah vs The Stae (Nct Of Delhi)
2016 Latest Caselaw 1399 Del

#6
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Date of decision: 22.02.2016

+      BAIL APPLN. 2732/2015

       JALANDHAR SHAH                                     ..... Applicant
                   Through             Mr. Sunil Tiwari, Advocate

                          versus

       THE STAE (NCT OF DELHI)                  ..... Respondent

Through Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State SI Mehrab Alam, PS Khajuri Khas Mr. Anup Banerjee, Adv. for the Complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

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

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking

pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 1196/2015, under Sections 308/34 IPC, registered

at Police Station- Khajuri Khas, Delhi.

2. Mr. Sunil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant

herein states that at the time when the applicant's application for anticipatory

bail was pending before the Sessions Court, the applicant had joined

investigation.

3. However, a perusal of the order dated 3rd December, 2015 passed by

the learned Special Judge, NDPS (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Bail

Application No. 20/2015 titled State vs. Jalandhar Shah reveals that the

Sessions Court was of the opinion that the restricted interrogation of the

applicant would not serve the purpose unless the Investigating Officer is

given an opportunity to investigate the applicant herein. In this view of the

matter, the Sessions Court by way of order dated 3 rd December, 2015

dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant being Bail

Application No. 20/2015 titled State vs. Jalandhar Shah.

4. A perusal of the order dated 3rd December, 2015 also reveals that the

custodial interrogation of the applicant is needed for effecting recovery of

the Saria (Iron rod) and the danda with which he allegedly attacked the

complainant in the subject FIR, resulting in a Clear Lacerated Wound

(CLW) measuring 2.5 X 0.5 cm on the latter's head and also injuring one

other person named Divakar, who sustained Clear Lacerated Wound (CLW)

measuring 4 X 0.5 cm on the right frontal region of his head.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would then urge that

they had also been injured in the altercation between the parties. However,

the police had failed to register an FIR on the basis of their complaint.

6. Be that as it may, in the present case, the applicant has caused injuries

on the vital part of the body of the complainant allegedly with Saria (iron

rod) and danda and his custodial interrogation is needed for effecting

recovery of the weapons allegedly used to commit the offence and cause

injuries. Two other co-accused are admittedly absconding.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of State represented by CBI vs. Anil

Sharma reported as 1997 Criminal Law Journal 4417, made the following

observations in paragraph 6 of the report:-

"6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. 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 reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, has 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."

8. In view of the gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant

which are serious and specific in nature and the circumstance that the alleged

weapons of offence are yet to be recovered, I do not find that this is a fit case

for grant of an anticipatory bail. The application is hereby dismissed.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J FEBRUARY 22, 2016 SD