CHANDER BHAN vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 05.12.2023
% Pronounced on : 18.12.2023

+ BAIL APPLN. 3930/2023

CHANDER BHAN ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.P. Singh and Mr. Vikrant, Advs.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent
Through: Ms. R. Bandhopadya, ASC for State
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 77/2023 under Sections 384/323/341/365/295-A/395/342/34 IPC read with Section 7 of P.C.Act registered at Police Station Anand Vihar.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 07.03.2023 at about 11:30 AM, the complainant Mohd. Nawab along with his cousin, namely, Mohd. Suheb was coming from Slaughter house Gazipur, Delhi in his Car No. DL 2CAE-3071 and was going towards his house at New Mustafabad, Delhi. When both of them reached Vivek Niketan (Ashok Niketan) red light Anand Vihar, suddenly one scooty hit their car and the owner of the scooty started fighting with them. During the fight, the scooty driver demanded Rs. 4000/- from them for settlement. Suddenly, one PCR Van came at the spot and from said PCR Van, Ct Sandeep and ASI Sompal came out. Ct Sandeep forcibly took Rs. 2500/- from the pocket of complainant’s brother Suheb and handed over the said money to the scooty rider and thereafter, pressurized the complainant for settlement and further demanded Rs. 15,000/- for the same. After some time, Ct. Sandeep and ASI Sompal Singh called some people and later on, four persons came at the spot who were introduced as officials of the department of NGT. All the persons took the complainant and his brother to the crime spot i.e. near Railway line, Railway Colony, where they all confined both of them till 2:30 PM and also gave beatings to them, they tried to cut their hands with knife, urinated on victims face and passed derogatory remarks, “mullo aaj tumhe jaan se maar kar naale me fenk denge aur tum gaukashi karte ho, aaj tum nahi bachoge”. They all forcibly took Rs. 25,500/- from the pocket of Mohd. Nawab. Ct. Sandeep called father of Suheb and at the same time, ASI Chander Bhan (Petitioner herein) also reached the spot. ASI Chander Bhan helped those four persons in running away from the spot. When father of Suheb reached the spot, ASI Chander Bhan took the victims to a Bengali clinic in vicinity for treatment and took Rs. 2500/- from them for their release. He also obtained the signatures of victims and father of Suheb on some blank papers. The complainant has further alleged that when the complainant wanted to file complaint against above said police officials, he was pressurized and threatened for settling the matter. As a result, the aforesaid FIR was got registered against the petitioner and investigation was taken up.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and is in judicial custody since 07.05.2023. He further submitted that there is a delay of four days in the registration of the FIR. He further submitted that FIR clearly reflected that the petitioner has no complicity in the present case and the offence had already been committed against the victims by other co-accused by the time the petitioner had arrived at the spot. He further submitted that in so far as the allegations against the petitioner that he had taken bribe of Rs.25,000/- from Mohd. Istiyak, father of the victim Mohd. Suheb, is a matter of trial as no such bribe was taken by him. He further submitted that since the investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody. He further submitted that there is not even an iota of evidence against the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner is a police official and the incident which took place on 07.03.2023 is in the teeth of the duties which the police officer has to perform. She further submitted that the statements made by the victim as well as by Mohd. Istiyak, father of the victim Mohd. Suheb clearly shows that the petitioner reached the spot in a pre-planned manner in order to protect the other co-accused police officials. She further submitted that it is alleged against the petitioner that he had taken bribe from Mohd. Ishtiyak. She further submitted that the call details of the petitioner shows that he was in constant touch with co-accused constable Sandeep. She further submitted that there is every possibility of the petitioner threatening the witnesses which is evident from the fact that the DD No. 66A dated 29.03.2023 which got lodged by the victim Suheb to SHO P.S.Anand Vihar clearly shows that the accused of this case had managed to influence the victim Soheb into exculpating the accused. She further submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature and the bail application is liable to be dismissed.
5. Firstly, DD No. 66A dated 29.03.2023 clearly shows that the victim Mohd. Soheb had written this letter to the SHO Anand Vihar exculpating the accused persons which clearly shows the influence of the petitioner on the victims. Call records of mobile no. 9560686263 which belongs to the petitioner and the mobile number 8816993602 of the co-accused Sandeep reflects that both of them were in constant touch from 11:58 AM to 1:45 PM during the alleged duration of incident which took place on 07.03.2023. The petitioner was also in touch with co-accused H.C. Amit on his mobile no. 9810538448 when he had talked with the co-accused on the date of the incident. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had reached the place of incident between 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM without any duty having been assigned to him, moreover, he had left the police station without informing the duty officer when in fact he was on emergency duty on 07.03.2023 from 9:00 PM. The victims are yet to be examined and there is every chance of influencing the victims if the petitioner is enlarged on bail.
6. In view of the above and looking into the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and that public witnesses are yet to be examined, no ground for bail is made out. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.
7. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of this case.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
DECEMBER 18, 2023/ib

BAIL APPLN. 3930/2023 Page 1 of 5