OM KISHAN ALIAS OMMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 07.03.2005 when this matter was argued, the following order was passed:-

(2.) The learned counsel for the State has verified and submits that it is a fact that from the Reliance Infocom telephone belonging to the petitioner a call was made on 03.02.2005 around 12.48 p.m. to the Police Control Room as well as to the Police Station Ashok Vihar whereby the relative D.D. Entry discloses that the petitioner had, in fact, called the police officers that he has kept captive a girl and a boy when the boy was in the process of running away with the girl. On this report, the police officers went to the address and apprehended the co-accused Manoj as well as the prosecutrix.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, as indicated in the aforesaid extract of the order, reiterated that had the petitioner been guilty of having committed any offence, he would not have called the police, particularly in view of the fact that the boy happens to be his brother-in-law (his wife Sanju's brother). The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner's name does not at all figure in the FIR nor does it figure in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement made by the prosecutrix. He also submitted that the Section 161 statement which is recorded in the police records is on the basis of a hand written statement given by the prosecutrix herself in her own hand. He further submits that the other co-accused, i.e., Manoj's sister Sanju and brother Virender had the benefit of anticipatory bail. The orders in respect of them have been placed at pages 14 & 15 of the paper book.