Satish Yadav v. State (NCT Of Delhi)

$~3 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 2349/2016 SATISH YADAV ..... Petitioner Through Mr.R.C. Tiwari and Mr.Tushar Saini, Advs.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sudershan Joon, APP with Insp.

Mukesh Kumar, PS Sangam Vihar.

Mr.K.P.

Mavi, Adv.

for the complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R D E R

% 23.11.2016 Arguments heard.

The present application has been filed for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.598/2016, under Section 308/34 IPC, Police Station Sangam Vihar.

The admitted case is that after recording the FIR, the Investigating Officer decided not to arrest the petitioner/accused and just asked the accused to join the investigation by issuing a notice under Section 41 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the accused preferred to file an application for the grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court of Sessions vide order dated 07.11.2016. The bone of contention in the present case is that when the Investigating Officer

has already taken the decision not to arrest the accused and that the accused is required only for the purpose of joining the investigation under Section 41 Cr.P.C., this Court has no power to ask the Investigating Officer to arrest the accused. The Court is required to go look whether there are grounds for the grant of concession of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Apart from the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the complainant has submitted that the facts and circumstances and the injury in the present case warrants that the concession of anticipatory bail may not be granted. He has emphasised on the injuries caused to the complainant. It is a settled law that the complainant can render assistance to the Public Prosecutor but instead of assisting the APP, counsel for the complainant is unnecessarily playing to the gallery, commenting upon the Investigating Officer, functioning of the State and other functioning which is not the subject matter of the complainant at all and wasting the valuable time of the Court. He is advised not to act in this manner and to waste the valuable time of the Court. In the facts and circumstances when the Investigating Officer has already taken the decision not to arrest the petitioner/accused, the petitioner/accused is permitted to join the investigation.

Consequently, it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner/ accused, he shall be released on bail on furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required. He is further directed not to

tamper with the evidence and influence the prosecution witnesses. He is further directed not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned.

Application is accordingly allowed.

Dasti.

P.S.TEJI, J NOVEMBER 23, 2016 dd