It was alleged that our client was indulged in operating fake companies and bank accounts and used to deceit money from public through internet means. The proceedings u/s 82 Crpc were initiated against him and he was avoiding arrest for more than 2 months.
It was argued that the petitioner had no role to play in the commission of said offences and was always willing to join the investigation. Unfortunately, the notices were never received by him.
The prosecution argued that huge funds are involved in the matter therefore custodial interrogation of the accused needs to be done. Moreover, it was submitted that the bank manager has admitted that the petitioner was the one who approached the bank for opening of false accounts.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that landmark pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and Satinder Antil vs CBI is applicable to present case.
Bare perusal of FIR and status report at this stage does not reveal specific role of the petitioner. The main contentions of the investigation agency were merely based upon the disclosures of co accused persons which carries no value in the eyes of law.
Therefore, in the light of aforesaid, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court granted pre arrest protection to our client and directed him to join the investigations.
It was alleged that our client in connivance with other accused persons had caused injuries to the legs of the police officer and also tore his uniform.
It was submitted that the petitioner was granted interim protection from arrest by this Hon’ble Court subject to the condition of his joining the investigation.
Further arguments were based on the discrepancies in the FIR and the suspicious role of the complainant, who caused delay in the registration of the FIR despite being a police officer.
Therefore, considering our client’s conduct and sincerity towards the investigation and legal process, the Hon’ble High Court granted anticipatory bail.
The attention of the Court was brought to the fact that none of the eye witnesses had named our clients and the whole implication by the investigation agency was based upon the disclosures and confessions of the co-accused persons.
Further, the court was also enlightened with the fact that the Investigation Agency has failed to support their case by some independent and cogent evidences which indicates prima facie involvement of our client in the case.
It was argued that putting these two accused persons on Trial would be against the process of justice and nothing could be proved as against them. Moreover, due to lack of evidences, the trial of these two accused would lead to unnecessary wastage of the precious time of the Hon’ble court. Also, it will hamper the trial of other accused persons.
Therefore, in the light of aforementioned arguments and considering the fact that the trial would serve no purpose, the Hon’ble Court Discharged two accused in the matter. They shall not be put to trial.
While allowing the revision petition on the previous date, the application for suspension & bail was listed for next month.
It was argued before the Vacation Bench that the petitioner has already served 20 days of sentence and if he is not granted bail then by that time he would have served more than half of the sentence. Therefore, the very purpose of moving before this court seeking justice would become futile.
Considering the aforesaid the Hon’ble Court suspended the sentence and granted our client the liberty of bail.
It was alleged by the Prosecution that our client attacked the victim by use of dangerous weapon due to which he sustained multiple grevious injuries on his head, shoulder, forearm etc thereby attempting his murder. The victim himself has seen him attacking and was also identified in the court during the evidence.
The attention of the Court was brought to the very fact that the Complainant is not a reliable and credible witness as on the one hand he stated that during the quarrel, my client pulled out the weapon from his pockets whereas during his evidence he said that the accused went to his home, brought the knife and then attacked him.
Further, during his Cross Examination, he accepted my suggestion and stated that he did not see the accused attacking him rather it was someone from the public who told him that our client was one of the person who were involved in attacking.
Moreover, It was argued that on the one hand the Complainant does not remember the date and time of attack but in his cross, he further stated the date of attack to be the date after the lodging of FIR.
In the light of the aforesaid arguments, the court was of the considered view that the witness is unreliable & untrustworthy and Therefore allowed the bail application.