Dismissed

Dalip Singh v. State of Delhi

Delhi HC1 Sept 2011BAIL APPLN./824/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by police officers, the Court considered allegations that the Prosecutrix was under control, leading to false implication and extortion. After finding serious evidence of money demand, false statements, and滥用 of process at the investigation stage, the Judge refused anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitions and pending applications for anticipatory bail were dismissed without granting relief to the petitioners.

Dalip Singh Vs State of Delhi — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.

¶2

No. 100/2011 under Section 7/13 POC Act and 384/201/120-B IPG registeredat P.S. Jahangir Puri.

¶3

.r^

¶4

Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that FIR against the Petitionershave been lodged belatedlyand that too not on the complaintof the complainantbut on cross-examinationofthe complainantby puttinghim leadingquestionsin the vigilanceenquiry. The versionofthe complainantis not supportedby any documentaryor other evidence. As a matter of fact when the prosecutrixwas recoveredin the FIR lodged at the Police Station, the Petitioner S.B. Yadav was the SHO and Petitioner HC Dalip Singh was the Investigating Officer. She made clear allegations against the complainantfor raping her. Since the Petitionersdid not succumb to the pressureof senior officerswho were interestedin helping the complainant, the Petitioners have been made a scapegoat. Despite applications for bail filed beforethe Hon'ble Court by the complainantand the complaintsmade to the senior officer, It is not alleged that the Petitioners demanded or were paid bribe. Even in the complaint dated 8^*^ February, 2011 filed on 1?"^ February,2011 after a periodof morethan 7 months there are no allegations against the Petitioner.

¶5

Reliance is placed on Rashtriya MuktiMorcha Vs. Suraj Mandal 1996

¶6

BAIL APPLNS. 788/2011 & 824/2011 page 2 of 10

¶7

'V.

¶8

IIIAD (DELHI) 481 to contendthat no FIR can be registeredon the basis of cross-examinationconducted of the complainant. Relying on Hari Gopal Wadhwa & Ors. Vs. State Bail ApplicationNo. 1239/07 decided by this Court on 20"" August, 2010 to contendthat bail shouldbe granted in a case where offence is made out on the basis of allegations brought out in the suggestions. The conduct of the Petitionershave been that during their tenure the second statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not permitted. However, once the investigationwas transferredfrom them, the InvestigatingOfficer concededfor grant of anticipatorybail to the complainant in a case under Section 376 IPG at the instance of senior officers on the ground that the prosecutrix is making contradictory statements. The call details of the ACP of the Petitioner with the senior officer clearly reflects that at the instance of senior officers, the Petitioner was instructed not to arrest the accused Naresh Gupta. Reliance is placed on Sidharam Satingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2010 XII AD (S.C.) 340.

¶9

It is further contended that the statement of Naresh Gupta, the complainant proceeds on the assumption that the applicant entered into a criminal conspiracy with the prosecutrix and her mother to extort money BAIL APPLNS. 788/2011 & 824/2011 page 3 of 10

¶10

¶11

from the complainant. This assumptionis totally contrary to the facts on record. Even co-accusedAnil Guptahad filed an applicationon 2"'' January, 2011 seeking further investigationunder Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. wherein also he allegesthat prosecutrixand her motherwere trying to extort money. However there was no allegations that the Petitioners demanded money. The Petitionershave joined and cooperatedwith the investigation. There is no possibilitythat they wouldtamperwith the evidencewhich is only oral in nature and hence they should be granted bail.

¶12

¶13

Learned APP on the other hand contends that there are clear allegations of demand and acceptance of money by the Petitioner. Reference is made to the statement of Rattan Lai the co-brother of the complainantwho paid the money. In his statementhe has stated that the complainant was called a number of times to the Police Station and demandedmoney. He was informedthat to sort out the entire matter Rs. 10 lakhs would have to be spent. He had given Rs. 20,000/- to HC Dalip Chauhan to finish of the case when HC Dalip Singh said that the prosecutrix was under his control and she would give the statement as desired. On reaching the Police Station he was shown the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to which Rattan Lai stated that this was BAIL APPLNS. 788/2011 & 824/2011 page 4 of 10

¶14

I ©

¶15

a difficulttask and HC Dilip Singh said that the money was demandedfor the same and he has settled the matter for Rs. 8 lakhs. He paid him an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. He furtherpaid a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to HC Dalip Chauhan in the presence of SHO S.B. Yadav. When an applicationwas moved, the LearnedTrial Court refusedto re-examinethe prosecutrixunder Section 164 Cr.P.C. Despiteall this notices were issuedto the complainant and moneywas demandedevery time he went to join the investigation.It is stated that delay in reportingthe matter is explainedby the complainantin his representationdated 8^*^ February,2011 whereinhe has statedthat he got the courageto reportthe matter only when he learnt of a similarcase being registeredagainst the same set of officers by an order of the Court. The abovementionedFIR was registeredafter a detailedenquiry. In view of the conduct of the Petitioners and the serious offences committed by them, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The gist of the prosecution case is that the prosecutrixwent missing from her house in JahangirPuri on the 18^'' September,2009. Priortheretothe prosecutrixwas workingas a maidservantat the house of the complainant. InitiallyS.I. Shri Bhagwanwas entrustedwiththe investigation,who made effortsto tracethe

¶17

BAIL APPLNS. 788/2011 <& 824/2011 page 5 of 10

¶18

¶19

L.r

¶20

prosecutrixand the alleged Niranjan, an employee of Naresh Gupta the complainantin the presentcase. Since the prosecutrixcould not be located on 2"^* February,2010 the SHO handed-overthe investigationto HC Dalip Singh for further investigation. HC Dalip Singh made efforts to trace the prosecutrixat Kolkata and various other places. Ultimatelyon 2"'' July, 2010 the prosecutrixwas found at Moradabadby HC Dalip Singh and other staffaccompaniedby the mother of the prosecutrixSmt. Ansaroo Khatoon. On 3'"'' July, 2010 she was brought to Delhi and her statementunder 161 Cr.P.C. recorded. On 4'^ July, 2010 the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section .164 Cr.P.C. in which she alleged that the complainantNaresh Gupta, Niranjan and Santoshraped her. She however sparedAnil Guptawhose name she had taken in her statementunder Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 3'"'' July, 2010. On 15'^ July, 2010 a notice was sent to Naresh Gupta under Section 160 Cr.P.C. by HC Dalip Singh to join the investigationon 19'^ July, 2010. On the 16^'' July, 2010 in the earlymorning a raid was conducted at the residence of the complainant Naresh Gupta. However his co-brother contacted a senior officer posted out of Delhi who in turn contacted the ACP who asked the SHO to leave the residence of complainant. Thus the complainantwas not arrestedand the Petitionerleft BAIL APPLNS. 788/2011 & 824/2011 page 6 of 10

¶21

his residence. However, SI Shri Bhagwan and HC Dalip Singh remained there to arrest Santosh, the servant of complainantNaresh Gupta. It is allegedthat afterthis stagenegotiationstook placebetweenco-brotherofthe complainantRattanLai and HC Dalip Singhat the instanceofInspectorS.B. Yadav for withdrawingthe name of the complainantfrom the statementof the prosecutrix. Shri Rattan Lai the co-brotherof Naresh Gupta paid a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs. However, this allegationwas not leveled by the complainant in his applicationfor bail made before the Court or in complaintsmade to the Commissionerof Police. Applicationwas filed in the Courtto recordthe statementof prosecutrixalong with an affidavitof the prosecutrixand her mother stating that the name of the complainant was inadvertently mentionedin her previousstatementmade beforethe Court and thus a fresh statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. be recorded. The Learned Trial Court rejected the application for re-recordingthe statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In view of the conduct of the Petitioners the investigationwas transferredto SI VinitaPrasad. Thereafterother accused Santosh @ Sumit @ Rahul was arrested by her and non-bailablewarrants against the accused Naresh Gupta and Niranjan were obtained from the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge. Non-bailable warrants were

¶22

BAIL APPLNS. 788/2011 & 824/2011 page 7 of 10

¶23

obtainedagainstNareshGupta, Niranjanby ASI Tejpal on the instructionof the Petitioner S.B. Yadav while investigationwas being done by SI Vinita. The complainantNaresh Gupta was grantedanticipatorybail on the ground that the prosecutrix was making contradictory statements on the 28^^ October,2010. On completionof investigationthe charge-sheetwas filed on November, 2010.

¶24

¶25

A ^

¶26

On 2"'' January 2011 an applicationwas filed by the co-accusedAnil Gupta for further investigationunder Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. wherein the Court passed orders for further investigationon the points raised. On 17' February,2011 a typed complaintdated 8"^ February,2011 was filed by the complainantbefore the Commissionerof Police stating that he has been falsely implicated in case FIR No. 540/2009 under Section 363/366/376/506/34 IPC P.S. Jahangir Puri. Even in this detailed typed complaintthere is no allegationthat the Petitionersextortedmoney from the complainant. The only allegations were against the prosecutrix and her mother for extorting money. A vigilance enquiry was ordered in the said complaintby the Commissioner of Police. When Naresh Gupta and Rattan Lai were called for the enquiry and they were cross-examined by the Inquiry Officer, they revealed that the Petitioners got Naresh Gupta falsely BAIL APPLNS. 788/2011 & 824/2011 page 8 of 10

¶27

implicated and extorted money from them. Subsequently Rattan Lai also produced CDs of statements between himself and the prosecutrix revealing how Petitioner was falsely implicated.

¶28

(||||^

¶29

The issue at the present stage is whether the Petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail or not. The allegations are serious in nature. The Complainant and his co-brother in the statement before the vigilance enquiry and the statements recorded during investigation have brought out that how they were falsely implicated. After initially getting implicated the complainant by the prosecutrix who was under the control of HC Dalip Singh thereafter money was taken to sort out the matter. This is evident even from the fact that though a notice was given on 15^^ July, 2010 to the complainant to join the investigationon 19^ July, 2010, however, without waiting for him to join the investigation a raid was conducted in the early morning at his house on the 16^*^ July, 2010. Further, though the investigation was transferred to SI Vinita Prasad, an application was got moved through ASI Tejpal on the instructions of the Petitioner S.B. Yadav seeking non-bailable warrants against the complainant. As per the statement of Rattan Lai the co-brother recorded during investigation SI Dalip Chauhan was made to return Rs. 1 lakh by the subsequent SHO of the Police Station, BAIL APPLNS. 788/2011 & 824/2011 page 9 of 10

¶30

PS JahangirPuri. Not only they demandedand accepted money, HC Dalip Singh also asked the favour of getting 5 tyres of a Santro Car changed and items like rice and wheat for his house. In view of the fact that the allegationsare serious in nature and the investigationis at a crucial stage, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners.

¶31

Petitions and pending applications are dismissed.

¶32

r fy

¶33

ij ' MUKTA GUPTA,J

¶34

SEPTEMBER 01, 2011 'ga'

¶35

BAIL APPLNS. 788/2011 & 824/2011

¶36

page 10 of10

Dalip Singh v. State of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalip Singh v. State of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kirpal Singh Vs State &Ors.

Mitthan Lal Marketing Ltd. Vs Medifix Packaging Industries

Rajesh Kumar Vs State

Paras Metals Vs S S Engineering

Paras Metals Vs S S Engineering

Bagwan Das Vs State of Delhi & Ors.