Rahis Ahmed vs The State
2020 Latest Caselaw 1367 Del

$~
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Date of Decision: 28.02.2020

+       BAIL APPLN. 599/2020
        Rahis Ahmed                                  ..... Petitioner
                           Through:     Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate
                           versus

        THE STATE OF DELHI                        ..... Respondent
                     Through:           Mr G.M.Farooqui, APP for
                                        State   alongwith       ASI
                                        Mahendra Singh PS Nand
                                        Nagri.


CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI

                              JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of second anticipatory bail

application filed on behalf of the petitioner Rahis Ahmed under

section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 183/18 u/s. 323/308/34 IPC, P.S.

Nand Nagri.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail

on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely

implicated in the present FIR. It is submitted that first anticipatory

Bail Appl. no. 599/2020 Page no.1 of 3 bail application bearing no. 547/2019 moved by the petitioner was

declined by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2019 on the ground

that the investigation is at initial stage, petitioner is not joining the

investigation and his custodial interrogation is required.

3. It is submitted that petitioner is ready to join the investigation

as and when required and in these circumstances, it is prayed that

petitioner be released on anticipatory bail.

4. The anticipatory bail is opposed by the Ld. APP for the State

on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious

in nature. The first anticipatory bail application moved by the

petitioner has already been dismissed by this Court. Petitioner is still

not joining the investigation. The investigation is still in progress

and at initial stage. The petitioner is not cooperating with the

investigating officer. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is

required for recovery of weapon. He has, therefore prayed for

dismissal of the bail application.

5. I have considered the rival submissions. The first anticipatory

bail application bearing no. 547/2019 moved by the petitioner was

dismissed by this Court vide a detailed order dated 06.12.2019 on

Bail Appl. no. 599/2020 Page no.2 of 3 the ground that the investigation is at initial stage, petitioner is not

joining the investigation and his custodial interrogation is required.

Since then there is no change in the circumstances of the case.

Petitioner is still not joining the investigation. The investigation is

still in progress and at initial stage and petitioner is not cooperating

with the investigating officer. In view of the above facts appearing

on record and further keeping in mind the fact that custodial

interrogation is required for recovery of weapon of offence, no

grounds for anticipatory bail are made out. The anticipatory bail

application is, therefore, dismissed.

6. Dasti.

                                                 BRIJESH SETHI, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2020
Amit




Bail Appl. no. 599/2020                                     Page no.3 of 3