SANDDEP Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No.490/2025 of PS Wazirabad, Delhi for offence under Sec. 109(1)/3(5) BNS & 25/27 Arms Act. Learned APP has submitted status report across the board, which is accepted to be scanned and made part of the record.

(2.) Despite repeated directions that when the IO is on leave, at least the concerned SHO should appear with the investigation file to assist the learned prosecutor, in this case again, neither the IO/SI Heera Lal nor the SHO Inspector Amit Kumar has appeared. The local police has opted to send one SI Renu only. This has to be now deprecated strongly. In the absence of the Investigating Officer or the SHO, adjourning the bail matters would certainly be wrong by adding to the incarceration period of the accused. Repeatedly such directions were sent to the concerned DCPs by way of judicial orders. It seems that those orders were not placed before the concerned DCPs. The issue of liberty of an individual cannot be handled insensitively. Copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police for information and necessary action.

(3.) The present case is on a similar footing. In view of overall circumstances of the case, I find no reason to adjourn the matter just because the IO and the SHO opted not to appear to assist the prosecutor. Not only this, even from the order passed on the bail application of co-accused Ishant (copy of which bail order dtd. 8/1/2026 has been produced by the learned counsel for accused/applicant) it appears that at that time also IO/SI Heera Lal opted not appear to assist the prosecution, so the matter was heard and decided, granting bail by way of elaborate reasons.