Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Application No.1294/2021
State vs. Amar Singh
Bail Application No.1295/2021
State vs. Swati Patel
FIR No.27/2021
U/s 384/389 IPC
PS: Parliament Street
21.06.2021
Present : Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State, through VC.
IO/SI Satyender Singh Yadav from Special Staff, New Delhi,
through VC.
Sh. Ratnesh Deo, Ld. Counsel for complainant Prince Raj,
through VC.
Sh. Bhuwanesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for applicants/accused Amar
Singh and Swati Patel, through VC.
Separate applications u/s 438 Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail
filed on behalf of applicant/accused Amar Singh and Swati Patel.
Brief facts are that according to the complainant, due to political
association with each other, the complainant and the applicant/accused Swati Patel
developed intimate relations with each other. However, accused was clicking him
in a compromising position with her. Thereafter, accused Swati Patel was
blackmailing him and demanded that he pay her Rs.One Crore else, she would
post his obscene videos and pictures on social media and make them public. The
complainant initially, paid some money 3 – 4 times to the accused as extortion
money but thereafter, accused Swati and her associate namely Amar Singh
continued preussurizing him for giving more payment and finally lodged the
present FIR as well as present application for anticipatory bail.
Reply to the bail application has been filed which reveals a
surprising fact that on 12.02.2021, houses of accused Swati Patel and her alleged
-- 1 of 3 --
associate Amar Singh at Ghaizabad was raided by SI Satyender Singh Yadav and
staff. They were accompanied by local police. Accused Swati Patel and her
associate Amar Singh were ‘apprehended’ by Special Staff of New Delhi District
and a diary entry in this regard was also made in local police station. Thereafter,
they were brought to Delhi where they were kept in PS Mandir Marg, New Delhi,
in the office of Special Staff and thereafter, notice u/s 41(A) Cr.PC was given to
them and they were interrogated and recoveries were made. After that as per
provisions of section 41.1 Cr.PC and judgement of hon’ble SC in Arnesh kumar
they were allowed to go. However, this portion of the reply clearly reflects that
the police of Special Staff along with local police raided the house of the applicant
Swati and his alleged associate namely Amar Singh, taken them into custody and
brought them to Delhi. According to the IO, they were kept in police station till
about 7.00 p.m. and according to the Ld. Counsel for applicant they were kept till
about 9.00 p.m.. In this entire period, they were in custody of the police where
they were neither arrested nor allowed to go.
IO and Ld. Addl. PP submit that in compliance of section 41A
Cr.PC and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of
Bihar, the applicant/accused and her alleged associate were not arrested as the
alleged offence carried punishment less than three years. However, if that had
been the case, there would be no raid at the house of the applicant and her alleged
associate and rather, either a notice u/s 41(1) IPC should have been served upon
these accused persons to join the investigation at a particular place and at a
particular time or, when they were available at their address, they should have
been interrogated then and there. However, police took them into custody and
brought them to Delhi. This could only have two consequence: either when taken
in custody they were arrested, if that was the case, as offence u/s 384 IPC is non
bailable, IO had committed illegality, for the reason best known to him, in letting
-- 2 of 3 --
them go, as he had no powers to do so. In fact, he acted as if the accused were on
anticipatory bail. Second scenario is that the police of Special Staff, New Delhi
District and the person Incharge therof, had kept these accused persons in illegal
detention for 12 hours and are liable for action against them. However, this court
is not in a position at this stage, without other details, to reach at a conclusion
either way.
In these circumstances, DCP concerned is directed to enquire into
the matter and file report / action taken report by next date of hearing.
Copy of this order be also sent to the Joint CP concerned. The bail
applications shall be heard thereafter.
Put up for arguments on aforesaid bail applications on 26.06.2021.
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants/accused Amar Singh
and Ms. Swati.
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ03/NDD/PHC/New Delhi
21.06.2021
(Through VC)
It is certified that Video Conferencing was held in an uninterrupted
manner and during the proceedings, no objections were raised by either of the
parties regarding the connectivity i.e. audio or visual quality.
(Ahlmad)
21.06.2021
-- 3 of 3 --