Custodial interrogation should be avoided in cases where accused has joined investigation, is cooperating with investigating agency & is not likely to abscond: Delhi HC grants pre-arrest bail in property dispute case
Justice Amit Mahajan [01-07-2024]
Read Order: GEETANJALI BEHL AND ORS v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [SC- BAIL APPLN. 3691/2023 WITH BAIL APPLN. 3692/2023]
LE Correspondent
New Delhi, July 12, 2024: The Delhi High Court has granted pre-arrest bail in a property dispute case where the applicants, along with a co-accused, were alleged to have taken a property on rent through a shell company and refused to vacate it after the lease expired. They were also accused of misappropriating articles attached to the rented property.
Justice Amit Mahajan, while hearing the bail applications, considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the exact role of the accused, and the possibility of the applicants fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence. The court noted that the co-accused had already been granted regular bail in the case.
The dispute primarily revolves around the alleged stolen articles and the nature of possession of the property. The complainant has initiated arbitration proceedings seeking possession of the premises and claiming compensation for damages and loss of furniture and fixtures. The prosecution argued that the accused run a syndicate through a network of companies and that the applicants are shareholders in the companies that were the main source of funds for the rental paid to the complainant.
However, the high court observed that the evidence in this regard seems to be documentary in nature and is already in possession of the investigating agency. The court also noted that the applicants have joined the investigation and cooperated with the authorities. Merely because their replies differ from those of the co-accused or they have not confessed to their involvement, it does not amount to non-cooperation, according to the court.
Justice Mahajan took note of the Supreme Court’s decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State Of Maharashtra dealing with the issue of pre-arrest bail.
“In cases where the accused has joined the investigation, cooperating with the Investigating Agency and is not likely to abscond, the custodial interrogation should be avoided. The purpose of custodial interrogation is to aid the investigation and is not punitive,” the Bench observed.
Considering the circumstances, Justice Mahajan directed the release of the applicants on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with two sureties of the like amount. The court imposed several conditions, including cooperating with the investigation, not leaving the country without permission, and not tampering with evidence or contacting the complainant or witnesses. The court clarified that the observations made in the order are only for the purpose of considering the bail applications and should not influence the outcome of the trial or be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to stay up to date on our product, events featured blog, special offer and all of the exciting things that take place here at Legitquest.
Add a Comment