Delhi High Court
Deepak Dabas vs State ( Govt Of Nct ) Of Delhi on 7 July, 2020
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07.07.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 1222/2020
DEEPAK DABAS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Shivek Trehan, Mr.Pranay Mohan
Govil, Ms.Geeta Sharma & Mr.Rahul
Chaudhary, Advs.
versus
STATE ( GOVT OF NCT ) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for State with
Ms.Jyoti Babbar, Adv. for Mr.Rajesh
Mahajan, ASC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. Present petition has been filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking
regular bail in pursuance to FIR No.09/2020 registered at Police Station
Kanjhawala for the offences punishable under sections 302/34 IPC &
25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
2. Mr.Kirti Uppal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner's arrest in FIR No.09/2020 on 13.05.2020
comes close on the heels of an order dated 12.05.2020 passed by Shri
Devender Nain, Ld. ASJ, Rohini, whereby petitioner/accused had been
granted interim bail in 9 cases where he was in judicial custody upto that
point in time. Prior to the said order dated 12.05.2020, there was no whisper
of the petitioner's alleged involvement in FIR No.09/2020.
3. Learned senior counsel further submits that the sequence of events
leading up to the petitioner's arrest in FIR mentioned above leaves no
manner of doubt that the arrest itself was arbitrary, illegal and carried out
with an intent to defeat and circumvent the earlier order dated 12.05.2020.
Prior to his arrest in FIR No.09/2020, the petitioner was already in judicial
custody in the following 9 cases:
S. FIR NO. Offences Regd. On Police Station
No.
1. 110/2012 392/365/34 IPC 10.06.2012 South Rohini
2. 791/2015 307/308/457/506/323/34 21.11.2015 Kanjhawala
IPC 25/59/27/54 Arms
Act.
3. 102/2016 302/34 IPC 25/27/54/59 29.01.2016 Begumpur
Arms Act.
4. 217/2016 186/353/307/34 IPC 29.02.2016 Begumpur
25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
5. 463/2016 307/392/397/34 IPC 25/27 20.06.2016 Vijay Vihar
Arms Act.
6. 69/2019 302 IPC 25/27 Arms Act. 01.03.2019 Begumpur
7. 415/2019 387/506 IPC 15.10.2019 Kanjhawala
8. 76/2020 387/506 IPC 31.01.2020 Aman Vihar
9. 67/2020 302 IPC 25/27/54/59 Arms 20.02.2020 Kanjhawala
Act.
4. Learned Senior counsel further submits that even before his arrest in
the abovesaid cases, the petitioner had been wanting to get married to his
fiancée- one Ms. Priyanka Siwas, who is a practicing advocate enrolled with
the Bar Council of Delhi since 2018. As such, the petitioner moved
applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in the abovesaid 9 cases seeking
interim bail on the ground that he was desirous of getting married. All 9
applications were heard together before the same court and as and when the
said 9 applications came up for hearing, the investigating officers in each of
the said cases filed their respective replies/status reports between 11.05.2020
and 12.05.2020. Status reports would reveal that there is no mention of the
petitioner's alleged involvement in any case other than the 9 cases in which
the bail applications were being considered at that point in time.
5. In addition to above, on 13.05.2020, even before the petitioner could
be released from judicial custody in light of the order dated 12.05.2020, the
petitioner was abruptly placed under formal arrest in a previously
unbeknownst case - FIR No.09/2020 dated 08.01.2020 registered at PS
Kanjhawala. He submits that out of the 9 applications under consideration in
order dated 12.05.2020, 3 cases - i.e. FIR No.791/2015, FIR No.415/2019
and FIR No.67/2020 are registered at PS Kanjhawala. Despite these 3 cases
being of PS Kanjhawala, none of the replies and/or status reports filed by the
police officials of PS Kanjhawala on 12.05.2020 mentioned that the
petitioner is allegedly involved in commission of offences being investigated
in another case - i.e. FIR No.09/2020 and that his custody is required in such
case.
6. He further submits that case of investigating officer is that role of
petitioner in FIR No.09/2020 came to light through a confessional statement
given by the petitioner in the course of his interrogation in another case - i.e.
FIR No.76/2020 registered at PS Aman Vihar pursuant to his arrest on
03.03.2020. Pertinently, FIR No. 76/2020 registered at PS Aman Vihar was
one of the cases in which interim bail was granted to the petitioner vide
earlier order dated 12.05.2020.
7. If the case set up by the police were to be believed, which is based on
nothing more than an inadmissible confessional statement, it would
essentially mean that though the police authorities had knowledge of the
involvement of the petitioner in FIR No.09/2020 since 03.03.2020 at the
very least, they neither arrested him - despite him being available in judicial
custody, nor made any efforts to interrogate him in FIR No.09/2020. The
interrogation referred to in Reply dated 15.05.2020 is the interrogation
conducted in FIR No.76/20 registered at PS Aman Vihar and not in FIR
No.09/20 itself. Further, even on 12.05.2020, when the Court of the Ld. ASJ
was considering 9 interim bail applications preferred by the petitioner herein
- one of which was filed in FIR No.76/20 registered at PS Aman Vihar and
three others were filed in FIR No. 67/2020, 415/2019 and 791/2015
registered at PS Kanjhawala, not once did the authorities deem it appropriate
to point out that the petitioner was wanted and/or being investigated in the
present FIR No.09/20.
8. Learned Senior counsel further submits that it is not understood, nor
attempted to be explained by the police as to why the petitioner was not
placed under arrest between 03.03.2020 and 12.05.2020 despite being
available in judicial custody in 9 pending cases. The version of the police
leading up to the arrest of the petitioner on 13.05.2020 as narrated in the
Reply dated 15.05.2020, is seemingly coincidental with his scheduled
release from custody pursuant to the order dated 12.05.2020 is
unconvincing, far-fetched and implausible. These facts clearly demonstrate
the maliciousness with which the police has acted in the present case and
leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner's arrest in FIR No.09/2020 on
13.05.2020 is the outcome of an afterthought with the intent to defeat and
circumvent the effect of the order dated 12.05.2020.
9. While concluding his arguments, Mr.Uppal submits that after having
considered the Replies/Status Reports filed in each of the 9 cases and after
having heard detailed arguments, the Ld. ASJ granted interim bail vide order
dated 12.05.2020 and directed that the petitioner be released for a period of
45 days for the purpose of his marriage.
10. Since the interim bail granted vide order dated 12.05.2020 has been
set aside by this Court today itself in Crl.M.C.1499/2020 by a reasoned
order, therefore, arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner raising fingers on the investigating team is of no help so far as the
present case is concerned. Moreover, omission on the part of IO mentioning
the complete details of cases, does not spoil the prosecution case and is no
ground to grant bail.
11. It is not in dispute that petitioner is involved in as many as 23 cases
involving heinous offences. Thus, he is a habitual offender. Moreover,
pursuant to order dated 19.05.2020 passed in Bail Appln. No.939/2020 by
this Court, the petitioner is already married, therefore, keeping in view the
serious allegations against the petitioner, releasing him on bail/interim bail
would hazardous to the society.
12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through email.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
JULY 07, 2020/ab
