CAPTAIN ARVIND KATHPALIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.475/2018 under Sections 201/204/465/466/471/506/202/217/279/280/ 120-B IPC and Section 11 of the Aircraft Act registered at PS IGI Airport.

(2.) The abovenoted FIR was registered on 24th August, 2018 pursuant to the directions of the learned ACMM, Patiala House Courts under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on a complaint filed by the Indian Commercial Pilots Association. The allegations in nutshell against the petitioner are that on 19th January, 2017, the petitioner deliberately avoided the Breath Analyzer Test while piloting Flight Air India-174 from New Delhi to Bengaluru and return flight AI-173. By the time the doctor on duty informed the flight dispatcher that the petitioner had not reported for pre-flight medical examination, the flight had already departed to Bengaluru and the flight dispatcher informed the petitioner to get done the Breath Analyzer Test after his landing at Bengaluru, however the petitioner still did not undertake the Breath Analyzer Test. Further on arrival back to New Delhi, the petitioner went to the pre-flight medical room and made a false entry in the register for flight AI-174 which was thus not counter signed by the doctor on duty. The register being a statutory record required to be maintained by the Airport Service Provider i.e. Air India Ltd., interpolation therein amounts to the offence of forgery.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had to attend a meeting of the DGCA and as the petitioner was getting late for the flight, he could not get the Pre-Flight Breath Analyzer Test done. Learned counsel further states that non-conducting of the Pre-Flight Breath Analyzer Test by the petitioner will not lead to the presumption/conclusion that the petitioner was drunk and thus not competent to pilot the aircraft. No criminal offences are made out and the FIR in question is a handi work of persons who are jealous about the petitioner's promotions which he has earned because of his hard work. The petitioner has been falsely implicated. He be granted anticipatory bail as he has joined the investigation as and when directed and is ready and willing to join the same as and when further directed.