Court punches holes in police probe into robbery
...the rottenness in the system is further highlighted from the fact that incident was of 15.08.2019 and the statement of the complainant was recorded on 16.08.2019, but the FIR was registered only on 28.09.2019.
HARISH KUMAR, ASJ, Rohini court
NEWDELHI: The Delhi Police have initiated an enquiry against at least three police personnel of the Prem Nagar police station after a Delhi court observed discrepancies in registration of a first information report (FIR) of a heinous crime and its investigation, which eventually helped the alleged accused secure bail.
During the hearing of the alleged accused’s bail application on September 18, the court observed that the investigating officer (IO) of the case did not include robbery charges despite recording the complainant’s statement wherein he accused four men of allegedly assaulting him and robbing him of around ₹43,000 last month.
In its order, the court also sought an explanation on why there was a delay in registration of the FIR.
“…the rottenness in the system is further highlighted from the fact that incident was of 15.08.2019 and the statement of the complainant was recorded on 16.08.2019, but the FIR was registered only on 28.09.2019 and it is not being explained as to why FIR was not registered on the same day, if the statement of the complainant disclosed commission of cognizable offence on 16.08.2019 itself…” additional sessions judge Harish Kumar said in the order.
The court said it is also noticed that from the facts stated by the complainant, offence of voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint and robbery under sections 323, 341 and 392 of Indian Penal code was made out. “…but deliberately FIR was registered only under sections 323 and 341 IPC,” the court observed.
Interestingly, the contents of the FIR had mentioned that the alleged accused robbed ₹42,700 from the complainant, Sanjeet Kumar Rathi, after assaulting him with an iron rod and the butt of a pistol at his bottled water filling plant at Rani Khera in Prem Nagar on August 15.
The robbery section was included in the case almost a fortnight after the registration of the FIR and that too when the complainant sought intervention from senior police officers, as his FIR was not being registered. The discrepancies in the registration of FIR and shoddy probe came to fore when the alleged accused approached the court for anticipatory bail and their lawyer told the court that subsequent imposition of section 392 (robbery) of IPC was “malafide”.
The lawyer sought bail on the grounds that the applicants were discharged from the police station without arrest on August 30 itself after executing bail bond.
The investigating, however, informed the court that the alleged accused were not arrested in the case and the robbery charge was not included in the case as per the instruction of the station house officer (SHO).
“A thorough enquiry in this aspect is needed by the police department. The CCTV footage of all the cameras installed in the Prem Nagar police station, from period August 30 and August 31, be preserved as the same may be required for the enquiry as to whether the bail was granted by the police or not,” the court said.
Deputy commissioner of police (Rohini) SD Misra said an enquiry in the matter with regard to observations made by the court has been initiated and it has been marked to assistant commissioner of police (ACP), Aman Vihar.
“The enquiry is in progress. We have suspended the IO. If anybody else is found guilty, we will take action,” said Misra.