|
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted bail to Head Constable Ravinder Dhaka, a Delhi Police official accused of abducting a complainant and extorting Rs 3 lakhs at gunpoint.
Dhaka and a co-accused allegedly fled the scene after the incident, which occurred during a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) operation designed to catch the perpetrators in the act. The CBI strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that the accused intimidated and assaulted the complainant while also destroying crucial evidence. The agency further emphasised that Dhaka and his co-accused were already facing trial in a separate bribery-related case. The court, however, ruled that while the allegations were serious, pending criminal cases alone could not justify denying bail. The accused was represented in court by Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, assisted by Advocate Aditya Singh Deshwal. Presiding over the case, Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that the investigation had been completed and the charge sheet had already been filed. Witnesses were in the process of being examined, and three had been partially deposed. The court observed that there was no indication that the petitioner was responsible for any delays in witness examination, reducing the likelihood of evidence tampering. During proceedings, it was also highlighted that Dhaka had been terminated from his position, eliminating concerns about his ability to influence witnesses. Given this, the "triple test" for granting bail favoured his release. Despite Dhaka's involvement in another CBI case of a similar nature--where he was previously charge-sheeted without arrest--the court maintained that the legal process would unfold accordingly. Additionally, a separate FIR had been registered for the abduction and intimidation allegations, but Dhaka had not been arrested in that matter. The court acknowledged the gravity of the charges and the existence of two other criminal cases against the accused. However, it ruled that these factors alone were insufficient grounds to deny bail--especially since the "triple test" for bail had been satisfied. The trial could take considerable time to conclude, and under Article 21, the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right. The petitioner had already spent over nine months in custody, and undue delays in proceedings--without fault on his part--provided strong grounds for granting bail. (ANI)
|
