ANURAG SINGH Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 27/3/2006, when this matter was taken up for hearing, my learned predecessor had indicated in the order the broad arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. It was noted that the counsel for the petitioner had argued that the charge-sheet against the petitioner was only filed under Sections 201/120-B IPC which is bailable and Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which is punishable with imprisonment upto three years or fine or both. It was also noted that the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the investigation had been completed and a challan had been filed and from the material collected and during investigation, no offence against the petitioner is said to have been made out much less any non-bailable offence. It was, accordingly, contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail. It was, however, contended to the contrary by the learned APP for the State who submitted that the petitioner, had purchased the Nokia mobile phone on which the conversation was recorded. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the State that on 20/10/2005, the petitioner with the help of the co-accused procured a forged letter of DCP (Crimes) for the purposes of tapping the phone of Shri Amar Singh which was a phone of Reliance Telecom. However, the court on 27/3/2006 felt that in order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to call for the trial court record which had been summoned. The trial court record is available.

(2.) Mr Dinesh Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the charge-sheet as well as the status report dated 28.03.2006 filed on behalf of the State by Mr Badrish Dutt, Inspector, NDROC, who is the Investigating Officer in this case. Mr Mathur first referred to the last paragraph of the charge-sheet which reads as under:-

(3.) On the other hand, this application for bail was vehemently opposed by Mr Pawan Sharma who appeared for the State. He stated that although the charge- sheet only makes out a case under Sections 201/120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the petitioner is, in point of fact, involved in the larger conspiracy. It is his contention that there are three other accused in this case, namely, Bhupender Singh, Kuldip Singh and one Mr Vijay. According to Mr Sharma, Bhupender Singh is the person who is said to have actually conducted the tapping and recording of the conversation insofar as the phone number 011- 39565414 is concerned. The co-accused (Kuldip Singh) is said to have procured the authorisation letters dated 9/10/2005 and 22/10/2005 which purport to have been issued by the Joint CP (Crimes) and by the Home Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi respectively. He submits that it is on the basis of these letters that Reliance Telecom permitted the tapping of the said landline being 011- 39565414. These documents were allegedly forged and fabricated by the co- accused Vijay. Mr Sharma pointed out that although the apparent role of the petitioner (Anurag Singh) is to the extent of procuring the mobile phone and attempting to sell the tapped conversation, he was also part of the larger conspiracy and, therefore, there is every likelihood that a charge may be framed under other sections also insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. He further submitted that framing of the charge is yet to be done and it cannot be said with certainty that the court would actually accept the case as made out in the charge-sheet. It may add charges or it may drop the charges. It was his contention that the petitioner should wait till the charges are framed and in case the petitioner is only charged for bailable offences, then he would automatically get bail. He also submitted that the offence that is said to have been committed by the petitioner is a grave one inasmuch as it interferes with the privacy of individuals. He further submitted that there is likelihood that the petitioner could tamper with the evidence and, therefore, taking all these circumstances into consideration, this court ought not to grant bail to the petitioner.