The Petitioner is accused of offence under Sections 498-A, 406
IPC. The perusal of the status report shows that the custodial
interrogation of the Petitioner is being sought only for recovery of Istridhan. The recovery of Istridhan alone cannot be a reason to deny anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. The police are vested with sufficient powers under the Cr.P.C to conduct searches of premises. Further, the material on record shows that there are cross-complaints. The petitioner had filed a complaint in 2018 stating that the complainant’s father is threatening him. There is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner and his family are in such a position that they would be able to threaten the witnesses. It is trite law that the Police Officer before arresting the accused who is accused of offence which is punishable with
imprisonment for a period of seven years has to be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent a person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him by disclosing such facts to the Courts or the Police Officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required
cannot be ensured. As Stated earlier, the mere fact that the recovery of Istridhan cannot be the sole ground for arresting a person for an offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. {Para 9}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF: BAIL APPLN. 2029/2018
POORAN SINGH Vs STATE OF DELHI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Dated: 10th DECEMBER, 2021
Print Page