New Delhi [India], Delhi Tis Hazari Court granted bail to three accused after observing non-compliance with the mandate relating to notification under the CrPC before arrest. Three were arrested in a case of housebreaking and damage. This matter pertains to an FIR registered in Karol Bagh.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Shipra Dhankar on Wednesday granted bail to Rohit, Surendra and Mantoo after pointing out that the investigating officer (IO) failed to comply with the mandate of Section 41A CrPC.
Advocate Rishabh Jain, while arguing for bail, submitted that no notice under Section 41A CrPC was served on Surender and Mantoo.
The court has directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned DCP for information and action.
The lawyer submitted that though a notice was served on Rohit and he complied with the terms of the same, he was nevertheless arrested by the Investigation Officer (IO).
On the other hand, the IO claimed that Rohit was ordered to produce other accused on June 10, but he did not comply with the order. He admitted that the accused appeared at the police station.
The reason for Rohit's arrest was that he could not produce any other accused apart from Surender and Mantoo. Surender and Mantoo were arrested because they did not have a permanent address in Delhi.
The court said: "The reason for arrest given by IO does not appear justifiable, especially considering that CrPc does not establish absence of permanent address as a reason for arrest. IO could have notified the accused Surender and Mantoo and taken steps to ensure your presence before him."
"As far as accused Rohit is concerned, it appears that he complied with the notice to some extent by producing two accused and thus cooperated in the investigation," the court said.
“In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that IO has failed to comply with the mandate of Section 41A CrPC.” said the judicial magistrate.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Shipra Dhankar on Wednesday granted bail to Rohit, Surendra and Mantoo after pointing out that the investigating officer (IO) failed to comply with the mandate of Section 41A CrPC.
Advocate Rishabh Jain, while arguing for bail, submitted that no notice under Section 41A CrPC was served on Surender and Mantoo.
The court has directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned DCP for information and action.
The lawyer submitted that though a notice was served on Rohit and he complied with the terms of the same, he was nevertheless arrested by the Investigation Officer (IO).
On the other hand, the IO claimed that Rohit was ordered to produce other accused on June 10, but he did not comply with the order. He admitted that the accused appeared at the police station.
The reason for Rohit's arrest was that he could not produce any other accused apart from Surender and Mantoo. Surender and Mantoo were arrested because they did not have a permanent address in Delhi.
The court said: "The reason for arrest given by IO does not appear justifiable, especially considering that CrPc does not establish absence of permanent address as a reason for arrest. IO could have notified the accused Surender and Mantoo and taken steps to ensure your presence before him."
"As far as accused Rohit is concerned, it appears that he complied with the notice to some extent by producing two accused and thus cooperated in the investigation," the court said.
“In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that IO has failed to comply with the mandate of Section 41A CrPC.” said the judicial magistrate.
