Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ram Chander Khatri vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 5 August, 2020

Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

                                                       via Video-conferencing

$~8
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      BAIL APPL. 1687/2020
       RAM CHANDER KHATRI                    ..... Applicant
                       Through: Mr. Jai Prakash, Advocate.
                             versus
       THE STATE NCT OF DELHI                   .... Respondent
                         Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the
                                     State.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
                         ORDER

% 05.08.2020 Status report dated 04.08.2020 has been forwarded by e-mail. Let status report be filed on record.

2. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant requests for a copy of the status report. Let a copy be made available to Mr. Jai Prakash during the course of the day.

3. Relying upon the status report, Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned APP for the State submits that in the statement of the complainant recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she has supported her version in the complaint; that co-accused Pradeep and Manish have been arrested and have been identified by the complainant in the police station; however the applicant Ram Chander Khatri @ Rama Khatri is absconding. Mr. Srivastava further points-out that the applicant resides in the same locality as the complainant; and he may threaten the complainant or other witnesses if given protection. The APP also submits that the applicant's custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the mobile phone and other electronic devices that were used Bail Appl. 1687/2020 page 1 of 2 in videography of the place of incident; and he is also required to be put through a TIP. The State further apprehends that the applicant may tamper with evidence or otherwise interfere in the course of investigation.

4. Upon being queried however, Mr. Srivastava fairly concedes that no notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. has been issued to the applicant so far asking him to join investigation.

5. It is noticed that the date of the incident is 23.06.2020; and that the present application came-up before the court last on 14.07.2020; but despite the lapse of time, no notice asking the applicant to join investigation has been issued even till date.

6. Mr. Jai Prakash submits that the applicant is not absconding; is very much available and is ready and willing to join investigation, whenever called-upon to do so. Counsel further submits that a perusal of the FIR will show that only a peripheral role has been ascribed to him, which also he denies.

7. In the circumstances, before proceeding further in the matter, the Investigating Officer is directed to issue to the applicant a notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. calling upon him to join investigation; whereupon, as stated by Mr. Jai Prakash, the applicant will join and cooperate in the investigation.

8. Subject to compliance of the above, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant till the next date.

9. List on 17th September 2020.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

 AUGUST 05, 2020/Ne

Bail Appl. 1687/2020                                       page 2 of 2