IRSHAD ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL.M.C. No. 4026/2014

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in essence, present case is of a person who had been working as an informer for the Intelligence Bureau ('IB') and Special Cell of the Delhi Police branch since the year 2000, which fact has been conclusively established by the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI') during its in -depth investigation conducted pursuant to the directions of this Court, whereby CBI submitted the Call Detail Records (CDR's) of petitioner No. 1 being in constant touch with the senior officers of Special Cell and IB to/from landline numbers of IB/HMA. The IB officers were coercing the petitioners to join a militant camp in Jammu and Kashmir and provide information from there but their refusal to obey the orders of their masters culminated into the false implication in the present FIR alongwith recovery of the alleged contraband. Subsequently, these facts were brought to the notice of this Court by way of a petition bearing Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 501/2006, whereby vide order dated 04.08.2008 this Court was pleased to transfer the investigation to CBI while casting serious doubts on the story of the Special Cell regarding the false implication of the petitioners. The CBI after conducting in -depth investigation filed its closure report before the learned Trial Court seeking discharge of the petitioners and action against the erring police officials. However, the learned Trial Court while declining to accept the closure report of CBI being premature concluded that truthfulness of two versions of two different agencies requires thorough trial of the case and also rejected the discharge application of the petitioner No. 1.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a petition being Crl. M.C. No. 2418/2014 assailing the said order, wherein this Court vide order dated 20.05.2014 after hearing the parties including the learned Attorney General of India allowed the petition and remanded back the matter to the learned Trial Court with the direction to only consider the CBI closure report and hear the parties afresh without influencing with the report of the Special Cell.