CHANDRA SHEKHAR Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No.1 is presently serving as SHO, PS Defence Colony and petitioner No.2 (Raj Kumar) is presently serving as HC, PS Defence Colony. This petition has been filed for expunging remarks made against the petitioners in orders dtd. 21/1/2023 and 31/1/2023 passed in Bail Appl. No. 202/2023 titled as State v. Vikas Gulati @ Vicky by Sh. Sonu Agnihotri, Additional Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in proceedings arising out of FIR No.221/2022, PS Defence Colony. Petitioners have further prayed for setting aside the directions issued by the Ld. ASJ to the Commissioner of Police to get an inquiry conducted through Vigilance Department as also to the DCP, South to get an inquiry conducted against the petitioners.

(2.) The background facts are that the said FIR was registered under Ss. 380/411/34 IPC for an alleged theft of sarees worth Rs.15.00 lacs from the shop of the complainant at Defence Colony. The accused were women whose anticipatory bail applications were listed on 2/1/2023. Petitioner No.2, being the IO of the case, opposed the bail applications. The Ld. ASJ after hearing arguments was pleased to dismiss the bail applications. During the course of early investigation, the petitioner No.2 had issued notice under Sec. 41A Cr.P.C. to accused Ms. Raj Bala and Ms. Sunita on 4/1/2023 pursuant to which they appeared on 5/1/2023 and cooperated in the investigation and consequently, there was no requirement to arrest the accused. Thereafter another accused person namely Vikas Gulati @ Vicky filed his anticipatory bail application which was opposed by the IO and was accordingly dismissed. In fact, the said Vikas Gulati @ Vicky had also preferred an anticipatory bail application before this Court which is listed on 13/3/2023.

(3.) However, amidst these proceedings, while passing orders on 21/1/2023 in the anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of Vikas Gulati @ Vicky, the Ld. ASJ proceeds to examine further issues relating to the investigation and notes in the order that a perusal of the case diary shows that there is no entry between 23/12/2022 and 4/1/2023 and the IO had omitted to write the case diary entry for 2/1/2023 when the anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Raj Bala and Sunita were dismissed. The IO wrote on 4/1/2023 regarding the issuance of sec. 41A Cr.P.C. notices to the said accused. Noting this fact, the Ld. ASJ opines that there was no need for the IO to oppose the anticipatory bail applications of the said accused if their custody was not required and having opposed the said applications and then making them join the investigation by serving them notices under Sec. 41A Cr.P.C., indicates there was "something fishy on part of police". The Ld. ASJ then proceeds to dismiss the anticipatory bail application of Vikas Gulati @ Vicky but observes that "from conduct of IO, it appears that he is not carrying out investigation in a proper manner and there is something more written on wall than visible".