|
A Saket Court has granted regular bail to an accused in an FIR after observing that the criminal involvement record maintained by the Delhi Police was riddled with inaccuracies and could have adversely impacted the outcome of the bail proceedings.
Holding that the accused had been wrongly shown as involved in at least 17 e-FIRs despite there being no arrest or charge-sheet in those cases, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police (CP), Delhi, to examine the faulty records, take corrective measures, and place proof of compliance before it. Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri noted that the prosecution had initially relied on a police report claiming that the accused was involved in 36 criminal cases. However, after the defence disputed the claim, the Court called for a verified involvement report. The subsequent reports filed by the Investigating Officer (IO) revealed significant discrepancies, including that in 16 e-FIRs no court record was traceable and the accused's status in police records was found to be blank. The Court ultimately concluded that the accused had been falsely shown as involved in at least 17 e-FIRs registered in 2017 at Mehrauli Police Station. The Court observed that merely because a person's name figures in a police record, he cannot be treated as "involved" in a criminal case unless he has been arrested or proceeded against in that FIR. It further remarked that the erroneous involvement record "may have impacted" the outcome of the present bail application, but the updated records now establish that the accused was involved in only five cases, including the present FIR, of which three had already been disposed of. Expressing concern over the inaccurate records maintained in the State Crime Records Bureau (SCRB), the Court directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, "to take stock of poor/false involvement record of accused maintained by Delhi Police and take corrective measures." It also directed that acknowledgement from the CP's office be produced before the Court on July 13, 2026. While allowing the bail plea, the Court also relied on the principle of parity, noting that two co-accused had already been granted regular bail while two others had secured anticipatory bail. It was observed that the complainant had named persons who were subsequently found to have been in Jammu & Kashmir and Goa on the date of the alleged incident, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative at the present stage. The Court remarked that the complainant's version "may not be confidence-inspiring at this stage." The Court further took note of the defence's contention that the complainant is the accused's mother and that the criminal case stemmed from a long-standing family dispute. According to the defence, the FIR was lodged following strained relations within the family and allegations concerning residence and property, and the criminal case was a result of those disputes. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Court considered the familial background of the dispute, the period of custody undergone by the accused, and the bail granted to the co-accused before allowing the application. (ANI)
|
