PRAKASH JARWAL Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 54/2018 under Sections186/332/353/120B/504/342/506 Part-II/323/34 IPC registered at PS Civil Lines, New Delhi.

(2.) The above noted FIR was registered on the complaint of Shri Anshu Prakash, the Chief Secretary of Delhi Government. In the complaint, complainant stated that at around 8.45 PM on 19 th February, 2018 he received a phone call from Shri V.K. Jain, Advisor to the Chief Minister, asking him to reach Chief Minister's residence at 12.00 midnight to discuss with the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister the issue of difficulty in release of certain TV advertisements relating to the completion of three years of the current government in Delhi. Complainant suggested that the meeting could be held on 20th February, 2018 in the morning however, Advisor to the Chief Minister reverted back to him at 9.00 PM and again at 10.00 PM stating that the meeting has been scheduled by the Chief Minister at 12.00 midnight. According to the complainant even prior to receipt of the telephone call from Shri V.K.Jain, he received a phone call from the Deputy Chief Minister at around 6.55 PM informing him that if the matter of release of TV advertisement was not resolved by the evening, complainant should reach Chief Minister's residence at 12.00 midnight to discuss the issue. As per the complainant, Advisor to the Chief Minister again called him at around 11.20 PM to confirm whether he had left for Chief Minister's residence for the meeting, whereafter, the complainant left the residence in his official car along with the driver and the PSO and reached the CM's residence at midnight. On arrival at Chief Minister's residence, he met the Advisor to the Chief Minister and thereafter both of them were taken to the front room where the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and around 11 MLAs/person were present. The Chief Minister told the complainant that persons present in the room were MLAs and they have come to ask him about the government's publicity programme on completion of three years. According to the complainant, one MLA firmly shut the door of the room and he was made to sit between the two MLAs, one of whom was Shri Amanatullah Khan, on a three seater sofa. The Chief Minister directed the complainant to answer the MLAs and explain the reasons for delay in release of the TV campaign, to which the complainant replied that the officers were bound by guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and any advertisement that has to be released, must be in consonance with the said guidelines. The MLAs started shouting at him, abused him while blaming him and the bureaucracy for not doing enough for the publicity of the government. One MLA, whom he could identify, threatened that the complainant will be confined in the room for the entire night unless he agrees to release the TV campaign. The complainant was also threatened that he would be impleaded in false case including under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Act. The MLA whom he could identify became more aggressive and abusively extended threats of life to him. Then suddenly Shri Amanatullah Khan and other MLA on his left side, whom he could identify, without any provocation from the complainant started hitting and assaulting him and hit several blows with fists on his head and temple. The specks of the complainant fell down and he was in a state of shock. With difficulty he left the room, got into the official car and left the Chief Minister's residence. The complainant clarified that at no stage did he retaliate or provoke any person in the room despite confinement, criminal intimidation by extending threat to his life and assault by several MLAs while discharging his official duty. The complainant complained that with the intention to criminally intimidate, cause hurt with motive to deter him from discharge of his lawful duty, he was compelled to follow unlawful directions. He further stated that none of the person present in the room made any effort to save him.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioner contends that of the offences alleged in the FIR only Sections 332 and 353 IPC are non- bailable being punishable for imprisonment upto three years and two years respectively. Thus the sentence that at best can be awarded to the petitioner is maximum upto three years or with fine or both. The petitioner has been in custody since 20th February, 2018. Investigation has concluded. No police custody remand was granted and no police custody remand can now be granted as 14 days period of custody has expired. There is delay in lodging of the FIR and getting the MLC of the complainant done. Thus the complaint is an afterthought. In respect of the other FIRs noted against the petitioner in the status report, in FIR No. 183/2014 under Sections 186 / 353 / 332 IPC an untraced report has been filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and FIR No.284/2014 under Sections 186 / 353 / 332 IPC has been quashed on the basis of compromise by this Court on 21 st March, 2016. The two other FIRs, that is, FIR No. 224/2016 and 358/2017 are politically motivated. Learned Senior Counsels for petitioner further state that the petitioner is willing to furnish any undertaking in respect of the conditions to be imposed by this Court and the petitioner be released on bail.