Custodial interrogation may prove more useful to unearth entire gamut of conspiracy: Delhi High Court cancels anticipatory bail granted to wife of AAP volunteer Late Ashok Mann in Kishangarh shooting case
Justice Navin Chawla [23-04-2024]

Read Order: SOMRAJ @ DHAMI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR [DEL HC- CRL.M.C. 2180/2022]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, April 26, 2024: In a recent development in the Kishangarh shooting case where there was a daylight attack on the petitioner Somaraj @ Dhami, who is accused of having killed AAP volunteer Late Ashok Mann, the Delhi High Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to Mann’s wife.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Navin Chawla was considering a petition filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.2.

It was the case of the Prosecution that on 18.10.2021, the petitioner  was travelling in his Fortuner car, being driven by his driver while returning from the court to his house. At about 12.40 PM, when he reached near Kishangarh, 4-5 assailants fired on him. One of the shots struck his driver, who was then rushed to the Fortis Hospital. He raised a suspicion of the said attack on Sanjay Mehlawat and Harender Mann, as he suspected that they had attacked him to take revenge as he was accused of having killed Ashok Maan, uncle of Harender Maan, in February, 2020 and was facing trial for the same along with his brothers Davender @ Dev and Dharmbir @ Kalu.

It was the case of the prosecution that four of the accused were arrested in connection with the FIR registered under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959, and two pistols and one Desi Katta along with 50 live cartridges were recovered from them. They disclosed their involvement in the present case. Further co-accused were also arrested in the said case.

The prosecution further alleged that the respondent no.2, wife of Late Ashok Maan, wanted to take revenge for the murder of her husband, and was involved in the conspiracy for the attack in question since the beginning. She had met the accused persons in her house and provided them rooms and shelter before the incident. The Status Report filed by the Station House Officer (SHO),complains that after being granted anticipatory bail, the respondent no.2 was not cooperating in the investigation.

The Bench noticed that there was a daylight attack on the Complainant/Petitioner by the assailants by firing gunshots in which one person was injured. The police/prosecution needed the licensed weapon to determine if it was used in the attack.

Respondent no.2 had not denied the fact that her husband did hold a licenced pistol. She alleged that she did not know the whereabouts of that licenced weapon and also admitted that no complaint of the weapon being missing had been lodged so far in spite of the police repeatedly seeking the recovery of the said weapon.

The Bench was of the view that the respondent no.2 was in clear breach of the condition that she would cooperate with the police officials.

The High Court asserted, “What the police needs from the respondent no.2 is not her confessional statement, but recovery of the weapon for which the respondent no.2’s husband was holding a licence. It cannot be said to be an attempt to obtain a confessional statement or self-incriminating statement. It is also settled law that custodial interrogation may sometimes prove more useful to unearth the entire gamut of conspiracy.”

Accordingly, the Bench cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.2. However, on the request of the respondent’s Counsel, the Bench ordered no coercive steps to be taken against respondent no.2 for a period of two weeks.