JETINDER SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. The FIR in this case was lodged by one Sanjay Sharma. He alleged that on 4. 2. 2009, when he was sitting in his office at Savita Vihar along with Anil Grover, Brijlal, Sandeep chaudhary and Rajesh Jain, Jeetu Pandit who runs cable line and in cable and has business rivalry with them, came there at about 9:15 p. m. along with 8-9 boys. They were holding baseball bat, iron rod, pipe, wooden stick etc. in their hands. They broke the glass and plastic door of the office and they gave beating to them. It has been further alleged that Jeetu also took away the cash bag from the hands of Brij lal Sharma which contained Rs. 2 lakhs.

(2.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has cooperated with the Investigating Officer by giving replies to his questions in terms of order of the Court dated 22. 9. 2009. The petitioner has placed on record a true copy of the questions and answers given pursuant to the order dated 22. 9. 2009. He denied the allegation against him and stated that ccn people themselves are having criminal bent of mind. The answers have been given to the questions of the Investigating Officer indicates that there was no cooperation of the petitioner as such. Flat denial does not amount to rendering cooperation to the Investigating Officer. According to the respondent, they need custodial interrogation of the petitioner in order to ascertain the names of those who had accompanied him and were involved in the commission of the crime. The respondent has also to recover the weapons which were used for giving injuries and the cash which has been stolen from the hands of Brij Lal sharma. Therefore, the requirement of the respondent for custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be said to be unjustified.

(3.) IN Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1985 SC 969 the Hon'ble Supreme court observed as under: