Mr. Sachin Kashyap, Advocate v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

in FIR No. 406/2024 registered under Sections 221/132/121(1)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) at Police Station (PS) Chhawala, Delhi.

2. As per the case of the prosecution an information was received vide D.D. No. 11A regarding a fight with the police officials. The Investigating Officer (IO) reached the spot i.e., Bhai Bhai Road Gali No. 32, Qutub Vihar Phase-I. It is stated that on enquiry it was told that Head Constable i.e., Umed and Constable i.e., Pradeep are taken to hospital. The statement of the Head Constable i.e., Umed was recorded and FIR No. 406/2024 under Sections 221/132/121 (1)/3(5) of the BNS was registered. The Complainant revealed that both the constables were patrolling and at around 1:20 AM found a car no. HR-16AB 4582 which was parked in suspicious circumstances with all windows closed. On inspection it was found that there were four (4) persons present in the car under the influence of alcohol. BAIL APPLN. 4683/2024 Page 1 of 5 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/01/2025 at 12:35:59 On being enquired one of the persons in the car started abusing the constables and thereafter, all 4 of them came out of the car and started beating the constables. Constable Moti Lal was also on patrolling when he saw the incident he rushed to the spot and apprehended one person i.e., Vikas sitting on the driver seat when they were all trying to flee away. Vikas revealed the name of other co-accused including the name of Applicant herein.

3. Learned APP states that the Custodial Interrogation of the Applicant is required as TIP proceedings of the accused/Applicant is yet to be done. He states that the Complainant has received simple injury.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant has in the application at paragraph ‘6’ categorically admitted that he was present at the spot of the incident when the incident is alleged to have happened.

4.1 He states that the Applicant does not dispute his presence at the site, however, the Applicant disputes the version of the complainant.

4.2 He states that the Applicant has also filed an affidavit dated

23.01.2025 categorically admitting his presence at the spot.

4.3 He states that since presence of the Applicant is not disputed there is no requirement of a TIP being conducted.

4.4 He states that the Applicant remains ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called for by the IO.

4.5 The original of the Applicant’s affidavit dated 23.01.2025 has been handed over to the Investigating Officer (IO). The Applicant shall ensure that the copy of the affidavit comes on record.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. BAIL APPLN. 4683/2024 Page 2 of 5 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/01/2025 at 12:35:59

6. Before adverting to the facts of the present case it would be imperative to refer to the judgments of the Supreme Court on the subject matter of anticipatory bail.

6.1 The Supreme Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashish Chatterjee1, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amaramani Tripathi2, and Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh3, carved out the conditions to be considered by Court while granting bail, which are summarized as under: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.

6.2 Further the Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar4 while dealing with the conflicting aspect of need for custodial interrogation and anticipatory bail held that even in the cases where custodial interrogation is not required, the Court cannot overlook the test of whether prima facie case has been made out against the accused by the prosecution. The relevant paragraph reads as under: