Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1661 (DEL)

PARVEZ AKHTAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2006-09-15

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2006
S. N. AGGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) EXEMPTION is granted subject to all just exceptions. Bail Appln. No. 3314/2006 and Crl. M. A. No. 9942/2006 ( 2 ) NOTICE, Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. ( 3 ) THE petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case under Section 365, IPC registered with Police Station Anand Vihar vide FIR No. 585/2005. ( 4 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a Teacher of Urdu in Bhagalpur, Bihar and he has been falsely framed in the aforementioned case with Police Station Anand Vihar, Delh. According to the petitioner's learned counsel the petitioner has absolutely no hand in the aforementioned criminal case. ( 5 ) THE prosecution's case is that on 28. 10. 2005, the husband of the prosecutrix had lodged a missing report regarding missing of his wife aged 23 years from the house. On that day, he did not raise any suspicion on any one in the missing of his wife. He approached the police again on 30. 10. 2005 and raised a suspicion on mohd. Sajjad Siddiqui with whom his wife was employed in the garment factory for stitching of clothes. On that day, he alleged that his wife was kidnapped by her employer Mohd. Sajjad Siddiqu. During interrogation by the police from Mohd. Sajjad Siddiqui, it was found that three boys Imran, Bablu and Guddu who were also working in the same garment factory had allegedly kidnapped the complainant's wife. The police could not apprehend these three boys Imran, Bablu and Guddu and this led the Delhi Police to obtain their Non-Bailable Warrants. One of these three boys Bablu was arrested by the Bhagalpur police from Bhagalpur and he in his disclosure statement named the petitioner as one of the four persons responsible for the missing of complainant's wife. The fact is that the complainant's wife has not been traced out till date. Except the disclosure of Bablu, there is no other evidence against the petitioner in the present case. The fact is that the complainant's wife has not been traced out till date. Except the disclosure of Bablu, there is no other evidence against the petitioner in the present case. The learned app for the State has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in muraleedharan v. State of Kerala, reported as III (2001) SLT 533=ii (2001) CCR 155 (SC)= air 2001 SC 1699 , and on the strength of the said judgment, he has contended that the confessional statement of the co-accused is a material piece of evidence when the case is in the initial stage of investigation. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to this proposition of law laid down in the aforementioned judgment. It is nobody's case that the disclosure statement of co-accused Bablu has not to be given any heed at the investigation stage. I am of the view that the right of the police to interrogate the accused and to detain him are two different things. Police investigating the case is certainly within its rights to interrogate the person whose name appears in the disclosure statement of a co-accused. However, such a person cannot be detailed in custody unless some independent incriminating evidence de hors the disclosure statement comes against him. Admittedly in the present case no incriminating evidence has so far been collected against the petitioner except the disclosure statement of co-accused Bablu. The petitioner says that he is gainfully employed at Bhagalpur and was nowhere near the crime in question that allegedly took place in Delh. The petitioner has roots in the society. He is stated to be a first time offender. There is no apprehension of his absconding the trial. The Investigating Officer will be within his right to interrogate him as per law. ( 6 ) IN view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail on his executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. He is directed that he should join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. Ordered accordingly.