Delhi High Court
Dilshad Khan vs State on 25 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 25, 2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2350/2018
DILSHAD KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil K.Mittal, Mr. Anshul
Mittal and Mr. Sushant Bali,
Advocates
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 274/18, under Sections
4/17 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') and under Sections
370/373/211/182/120-B of IPC, registered at police station Burari, Delhi
while claiming to be innocent.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there are two
contradictory statements of prosecutrix i.e. one on the basis of which FIR
of this case has been recorded and another one recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C., which makes the prosecution case unreliable, as petitioner
has never interacted with Sabreen or Rubina. It is pointed out that as per
the call detail record (CDR) of petitioner's mobile, there was no
interaction between petitioner and these two ladies. It is pointed out that
as per respondent's status report, Tabassum and Sabreen were in constant
touch and petitioner has been roped falsely in this case at the instance of
one Haroon, against whom the FIR of this case was initially registered. It
is also submitted that petitioner has already joined the investigation and
as per status report, custodial interrogation of petitioner is required to
recover his mobile phone, but it has already been handed over to police
and nothing incriminating has come in the supplementary status report
against petitioner. It is pointed out that petitioner's son -Ishran Khan has
been arrested and as per his disclosure statement, he had paid ₹60,000/- to
co-accused Inamul Haq (Nana of prosecutrix) and so, there is no
justification to deny pre-arrest bail to petitioner. It is submitted that no
offence is made out against petitioner under Section 370 of IPC or under
Section 4 of POCSO Act. Lastly, it is submitted that custodial
interrogation of petitioner is not required to trace out Sabreen, as
petitioner does not know her and cannot get her traced.
On the contrary, Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that petitioner's custodial interrogation is required to arrest co-
accused Sabreen and Irfan and their mobile phone with sim numbers are
required to be traced for effective investigation of this case. It is also
submitted that the offence committed by petitioner is heinous and he has
not cooperated in the investigation and unless custodial interrogation of
petitioner is granted, effective investigation is not possible. Lastly, it is
submitted that petitioner is threatening Rubina of dire consequences and
so, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioner is made out.
Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR of this case, status report, I
find that prosecutrix has been frequently changing her stand. In the first
instance, prosecutrix had initially named Haroon and lateron, she had
named petitioner as an accused. The allegations levelled against son of
petitioner are of serious nature but petitioner is sought to be made an
accused on the basis of statement of co-accused Inamul Haq, s/o. Mohd.
Zameel, who lateron, in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
implicated petitioner.
It is a matter of record that Inamul Haq is related to prosecutrix and
Sabreen, Rubina etc. are also related to him. Petitioner has already joined
investigation of this case. Petitioner's custodial interrogation is sought to
trace out co-accused Sabreen. Infact, co-accused Sabreen is related to co-
accused Inamul Haq and so, there appears to be no justification to deny
pre-arrest bail to petitioner to trace out co-accused Sabreen. Another
ground to oppose petitioner's pre-arrest bail is that if petitioner is released
on bail, then there are very high chances of his manipulating witnesses
and tampering with the evidence. Petitioner is already on pre-arrest bail
for long and so, apprehension expressed is misplaced. There is no basis to
assert that petitioner has been trying to tamper with the evidence.
Considering the fact that petitioner's son is in custody and
petitioner is sought to be implicated on basis of statement of co-accused
Inamul Haq, who has substantial role to play, and that petitioner has
already joined the investigation, it is deemed appropriate to make interim
order of 8th October, 2018 absolute.
Without commenting on the merits of this case, it is directed that in
the event of arrest, petitioner be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing
bail bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one local surety in the like amount
to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer/Arresting Officer. It is made
clear that in case petitioner is found to be tampering with the evidence,
then respondent-State shall be at liberty to get this order revoked.
With aforesaid rider, this application is disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 25, 2019
v/r
