Delhi District Court
Jasbir Singh vs B.S Khushwa Si Geeta Colony on 8 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02,
DISTRICT EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Prerna Rai, DJS
JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY
CNR No.: DLET020000041996
CT Cases 49063/2016
PS. Geeta Colony
JUDGMENT
1.) Name of the Complainant : Lt. Jasbir Singh, S/o Lt. Shri Pritam Singh R/o 13/217, Geeta Colony, Delhi-
110031 (through its Legal heirs namely Mr. Manpreet Singh)
2.) Name of the accused and : (1) B. S. Kushwah, S/o Late Sh. Hom Singh (2) Karamvir, S/o Sh. Ramphal (3) Virender, S/o Late Sh. Subey Singh (4)Zahur Ahmed, CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 1 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:15
+0530
S/o Late Sh. Kare
Khan
3.) Offence Complained of : 448/323/506(part-
1)/342/34 of IPC
4.) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
5.) Date of institution of the case : 02.03.1996
6.) Final order : Accused persons
namely Karamvir
S/o Sh. Ramphal,
Virender, S/o Late
Sh. Subey Singh
and Zahur Ahmed,
S/o Late Sh. Kare
Khan are hereby
acquitted for
offences punishable
under section
448/323/506 (Part
1)/342/34 of IPC
and accused B.S.
Kushwah, S/o Late
Sh. Hom Singh is
convicted for the
offence of
Wrongful
Confinement
Punishable under
section 342 of IPC
and acquitted for
the offence under
section 448/323/506
(Part1)/342/34 of
IPC.
7.) Reserved for judgment on : 08.04.2026
CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 2 of 24
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA RAI
PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:16
+0530
8.) Judgment pronounced on : 08.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present Judgment, this court shall disposed of the present complaint filed by the complainant namely Late Shri Jasbir Singh (since deceased in the present case) against accused persons namely B.S. Kushwa, Karamvir Singh, Virender and Zahur Ahmed. It is alleged by the LR of the complainant that a complaint case was filed by the deceased complainant alleging that there was an ongoing dispute between the deceased complainant, his father on one hand and his uncle namely Rajender Singh Fauji on the other hand in respect of their ancestral property bearing No. 13/217, Geeta Colony, Delhi. It has been alleged that some civil case were also going on between the parties. It was alleged that the uncle of the complainant namely Rajender Singh manged to lodged an FIR against him and his father at PS Geeta Colony in case FIR No. 96/95, u/Sec: 420/468/471/34 IPC. The complainant was granted anticipatory bail by the Ld. ASJ vide order dated 25.01.1996. The father of the complainant namely Pritam Singh too was directed to be released on bail by Ld. ASJ vide order dated 23.12.1995. It is alleged that despite the passing of the said order, on the night intervening 28th and 29th February 1996, SI B.S. Kushwah of PS Geeta Colony alongwith 7 - 8 other police officials including co-accused persons namely Ct. Karamvir Singh (now ASI), Ct. Virender (now ASI) and HC Zahur Ahmed (now Retd. SI) raided the house of the complainant at about mid-night, made his forcible entry and manhandled the ladies present in the house. They also gave beatings to the deceased complainant and his brother and ransacked the house and took CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 3 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:12
+0530
away valuables, cash and certain documents. They also dragged and took away the deceased complainant, Bakshish Singh and Gurvinder Singh to the police station. Later on Bakshish Singh and Gurvinder Singh were permitted to be released on surety but the complainant was detained despite the directions of the Ld. ASJ for releasing him on bail in the event of arrest. He was produced in the court of Ld. MM on the next day where the bail orders were shown and Ld. MM then directed the complainant to be released on bail after making certain observations as contained in his order dated 29.02.1996.
02. Thereafter, the complainant made complaints to the higher police officials but to no result and thereafter he filed a complaint case. Initially, an inquiry was got conducted through DCP (vigilance) but the result of the inquiry was not to satisfaction of the complainant and he thus proceeded with the complaint case.
03. During trial of this the present case, the complainant has moved an application u/Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. dated 17.02.2020 wherein the LR for the complainant namely Manpreet Singh filed the name of the other associates of the accused B.S. Kushwah i.e. Ct. Karamvir Singh, Ct. Virender, Ct. Pramod Kumar and HC HC Zahur Ahmed Ahmed. Ct. Pramod Kumar remains untraceable and the matter was proceeded against the accused persons vide order dated 29.04.2023.
04. Upon consideration, the court observed that it is an admitted that, apart from the SI B.S. Kushwah, other police officials were also part of the raiding party involved in the alleged incident. Although their names CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 4 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:14
+0530
were not disclosed at the stage of filing of the complaint or during pre- summoning evidence, the same came on record during the course of trial through the testimony of witness CW3 Sh. Bakshish Singh and supporting documents. In the aforesaid application, the court noted that the deposition of the witness clearly identified the other members of the raiding party, namely Ct. Karamvir Singh, Ct. Virender, Ct. Pramod Kumar and HC Zahur Ahmed. The subsequent disclosure of identities was found to be credible and sufficient to establish a prima facie case against them for their involvement in the alleged offences. The court had also observed that the earlier dismissal of the revision petition did not bar summoning of additional accused persons, if their identities and roles surfaced during trial. Accordingly, the court summoned the aforesaid co-accused persons in the present case and charge under Section 448/323/506(part-1)/342/34 IPC were framed against the accused persons on 27.07.2013 and 20.09.2024 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
05. In order to prove its case, the deceased complainant had examined five witnesses namely himself, Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Sh. Bakshish Singh and two record clerks from the police stations. Further, these witnesses were examined in the PSE. However, except CW2 Mr. Amarjeet Singh and CW3 Mr. Bakshish Singh, the aforementioned remaining witnesses were not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsels for the accused persons as they were expired during the pendency of this case. It is pertinent to mentioned herein that Complainant's evidence in the present case was firstly closed on 07.03.2020 on the statement of deceased complainant Jasbir Singh and later on 05.01.2026 on the statement of LR of the deceased complainant.
CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 5 of 24
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA RAI
PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:13
+0530
Complainant Evidence
06. CW2 Sh. Amarjeet Singh, who deposed that Bakshish Singh, who is the son of his maternal uncle (mama) Veer Singh, lives at some distance from his house in Geeta Colony. He deposed that in the night of 28-29, February, 1996, at around 2:00 - 02:30 AM in the night, while he was sleeping at his house and at that time, mother of Sh. Bakshish Singh made a phone call at his house and when father of CW2 picked up the phone and then called him for taking the phone call. He further deposed that mother of Bakshish Singh told him on telephone that her husband is not at the home and the police had taken Bakshish Singh, Jasbir Singh and their younger brother to the police station and requested him (CW2) to come to the PS Geeta Colony. CW2 further deposed that at that time, he and his father went to the Police Station Geeta Colony, there they saw that all three brother namely Jasbir Singh, Bakshish Singh and their younger brother had been detained by the police. CW2 further deposed that their condition was very bad and their hair were not tied. He further deposed that Bakshish Singh's mother was also present at the Police station. He also deposed that initially, the police officials were not willing to talk to him and his father. When they insisted and asked what the matter was, the accused B.S. Kushwa told his father that accused Jasbir Singh is wanted in some case and accused Jasbir Singh is also a "Proclaimed Person" (PO) and accused B.S. Kushwa further stated them that Bakshish Singh and their younger brother were fighting with him and therefore, they are also taken to the PS. CW2 further deposed that mother of Bakshish Singh stated to accused B.S. Kushwa that Jasbir Singh (accused in some other case) is already on bail, therefore, he be released from PS. Thereafter, father of CW2 gave bail for Bakshish Singh and also for their younger CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 6 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:13
+0530
brother. CW2 further deposed that after that Bakshish Singh's mother had tole him that she had gave money to the police officials for securing the release of her son Bakshish Singh and their younger brother. Only then did the police release Bakshish Singh and his younger brother.
Thereafter, CW2 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and during his cross-examination he stated that he cannot say whether Sh. Rajender Singh is uncle/Chacha of Sh. Jasbir Singh. He further stated that he did not know about the criminal case which are registered against Jasbir Sigh and his father Late Sh. Pritam Singh. CW2 admits that late Sh. Pritam Singh was an employee in Delhi Police. He further stated that he did not know whether there is any property dispute pending between the father of Sh. Jasbir Singh and Sh. Rajender Singh. He further stated that his house was situated at the distance of 1 KM from the house of Sh. Jasbir Singh. CW2 further stated that he do not know whether Sh. Rajender Singh was present in the PS or not during the period of his stay in the PS. He admits that mother of Sh. Jasbir Singh has shown any bail order to the police. CW2 further stated that he remained in the PS about 02-02-1/2 hours. HE further stated that his father had not told him anything about any money given in the PS. He further stated that Police had never asked his father to come in the PS after that day. He further stated that Jasbir Singh, his mother and brother never told him about the previous incident dated 28/29, February, 1996. CW2 further denied that on 28/29, February, 1996, he id not visit at the PS Geeta Colony about this matter or that he was deposing before this court at the instance of Bakshsih Singh, Jasbir Singh and his mother due to close relation with them.
CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 7 of 24
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA RAI
PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:13
+0530
Thereafter, CW2 Amarjeet Singh was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsels for the accused persons at length.
07. CW3 Sh. Bakshish Singh who deposed that his uncle Rajender Singh had illegally sold the plot no. 13/207, Geeta Colony, Delhi which belongs to his father Sh. Pritam Singh regarding which his father and other family members had made several complaints. He further deposed that an FIR No. 96/95 was registered against his father and brother Jasbir Singh at the instance of his uncle. Thereafter, his father and brother made application for anticipatory bail. CW3 further deposed that on 23.12.1995 his father was granted anticipatory bail. He also deposed that the accused B.S. Kushwa was the IO of the said case and he remained present on all the hearings of the bail application. CW3 further deposed that in the month of January 1996 his brother was also granted bail after notice to the accused. Thereafter, after 2-3 days of the bail order father of CW3 and brother went to the PS Geeta Colony with his relatives Sh. R.S. Sethi and Sh. Gurdeep Singh for the purpose of furnishing bail bond and surety bonds. He further deposed that the accused sent them back stating that they will be called whenever required. He further deposed that he was present at that time in the PS with Sh. Gurdeep Singh whi was his father- in-law. CW3 Sh. Bakshish Singh further deposed that in the intervening night of 28/29.02.1996 the accused alongwith 6-7 other police officials came to their house in an Allwyn Nissan matador vehicle at about 12:30 AM. He further deposed that his mother addressed the bell and saw from the first floor that there were police officials outside their house who were asking to open the door. Thereafter, his mother was threatened and misbehaved with and she then opened the door. He further deposed that by CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 8 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:14
+0530
that time they all were awake and thereafter, police officials came to their respective rooms and brought them to the drawing room after pulling them out of their bed rooms. He further deposed that all threatened by the presence of the police. CW3 Sh. Bakshish Singh also deposed that the policemen misbehaved with his mother and with their elder sister in law namely Smt. Paramjeet Kaur and they demanded the keys to the almirah where the Will of their grandmother Smt. Harkaur was allegedly kept. He further deposed that his mother and sister in law stated that there was no such Will present, however, there upon all the male members were caught hold of by the police officials. He further deposed that thereafter, his sister in law and his wife who then was pregnant was pushed by the accused B.S. Kushwa and by two other policemen. Thereafter, his mother gave to the police officials the keys of the almira. CW3 Bakshish Singh submits that thereafter they all three brothers, he himself, Jasbir Singh and Gurvinder Singh were then beaten up and made to sit in the vehicle. He further stated that when he asked the reasons of such behavior of the policemen, they did not inform them and were told that the reasons will be disclosed to them in the PS. CW3 also deposed that after some time their mother came out and told the policemen that her sons are on bail in the said case registered against them. He further deposed that he had also informed the said fact, however, they all three brothers were taken to the PS. CW3 also deposed that at that time, his father was in Patiala and he asked his mother to visit the PS with copy of the bail orders. He further deposed that in the PS the accused and other police officials made us to sit on ground and they misbehaved with us and also assaulted us. Thereafter, they started preparing documents. The jama talashi documents were prepared. He also deposed that they continuously kept on telling to the CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 9 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:16
+0530
accused police persons that complainant Jasbir Singh and his father were on bail and that his mother was soon coming with the copy of the bail order. Despite the same, brother of CW3 namely Jasbir Singh was locked up after obtaining his signature. CW3 further deposed that their signatures were also obtained on blank papers and in the meantime his mother and other relatives namely Amarjeet Singh Chhabra and Gurbachan Singh Chhabra to whom her mother had made a telephone call had also arrived at the PS and they produced the copy of the bail order to the accused, however, the accused refused to act upon the same and stated "iske batti bana ke...... lo". CW3 also deposed that thereafter, the copy of the bail order were also shown to the SHO D.N. Kaushi, who told that it is for the IO to act on these orders. He further deposed that her mother and relatives kept on questioning the motive for his apprehension and that of his brother Gurvinder Singh. CW3 further deposed that the accused was planning to implicate them in some false case. On insistence the accused agreed to release the two brothers but not Jasbir Singh. CW3 also deposed that the accused obtained written undertaking from Amarjeet Singh Chhabar and Gurbachan Singh that they will produce Bakshish Singh and Gurvinder Singh whenever required in the PS. He further deposed that at his home, his mother told them that a sum of Rs. 2000/- was taken by the accused from her. Thereafter, CW3 Bakshish Singh and his brother Gurvinder Singh went to the Vigilance department, PHQ, ITO to complaint regarding the conduct of the police officials. CW3 Bakshish Singh further deposed that Jasbir Singh was produced in the court of the then Ld. MM Sh. A.K. Mendiratta by the accused and police custody was sought, however, ld. MM declined the custody and accepted the bail bond. He further deposed that the court further gave them the liberty to file case of contempt of court CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 10 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:15
+0530
against the accused. He further deposed that after reaching home Jasbir Singh told them that his finger prints and foot prints were taken in the PS and his photographs from several angles with Takhti hung from his neck with his name Jasbir Singh @ Jassa were obtained. CW3 Bakshish Singh also deposed that despite his brother never been known as Jassa the said foot print etc were obtained purportedly to connect him with terrorist Jassa from Punjab. He further informed that his mother told that the policemen had taken away with them a sum of Rs. 12,500/- alongwith ornaments and some documents kept in the almirah. CW3 Bakshish Singh further deposed that the raiding party constituting Zahur Ahmed, Pramod Kumar, Karambir and Virender and all these persons had also misbehaved with them after trespassing into their house. He further deposed that Paramjit Kaur is his sister in law and wife of his elder brother Jasbir Singh.
Thereafter, CW3 Bakshish Singh was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsels for the accused persons at length.
08. CW5 Head Constable Rajpal Singh (record clerk Mohrar MHC(R), who deposed that he brought the record from the PS Geeta Colony in respect of DD entry and Kalandara, Ex.CW5/A and have also submitted report forwarded by SHO PS Geeta Colony Ex.CW5/B. He had also brought one DD No. 55B dated 12.10.2002 of PS Geeta Colony which pertains to destroy of record Ex.CW5/C. The record as per the Ex.CW5/A has been destroyed as per the order of the DCP East. Photocopy of the said order which is from the original record Ex.CW5/D. CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 11 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:14
+0530
09. During trial of the present case statement of Mr. Surjeet Singh, Record Clerk was also recorded and during his examination in chief he produced the summoned record i.e. minutes of meeting dated 16.09.2025, Sub Destruction of records and consigned in record room, East district, KKD Courts, Delhi which was already exhibited as Ex.X1(colly 2 pages), which contains that FIR No. 96/1995 was destroyed vide circular dated 16.09.2025.
10. During trial of the present case, accused B.S. Kushwah had admitted the documents Ex.CW3/G, Ex.CW3/H and Ex.CW3/I in his statement u/Sec. 294 Cr.PC.
Statement of accused persons recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C.
11. All incriminating evidence appearing against the accused persons was put to them individually, to which they denied the allegations and claimed false implication.
(a) Accused B.S. Kushwa has stated that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case to protect themselves in a case, filed against the complainant, in which accused B.S. Kushwah was IO.
(b) Accused persons namely Constable Karambir, Constable Virender, Retd. Sub-Inspector Zahur Ahmed @ Zehar have stated that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and they are in the capacity of police personal are duty bound CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 12 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:16
+0530
to follow the instructions of their senior officiers and all the acts/proceedings were done by them in discharge of their official duties.
12. However, no defence evidence was lead by the accused persons.
Points for Determination
13. The following issues arise for consideration :
(a) Whether the accused persons committed house trespass?
(b) Whether they voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and others?
(c) Whether the complainant was wrongfully confined?
(d) Whether criminal intimidation was extended?
(e) Whether the acts were committed in furtherance of common intention?
Appreciation of Evidence
14. This Court has meticulously examined the entire oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record, in the backdrop of the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is trite law that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; however, such proof does not mean proof beyond all iota of doubt. The Court is required to assess whether the evidence led inspires confidence and establishes the guilt of the accused persons through a coherent and credible chain of circumstances. At the very outset, it is pertinent to observe that the CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 13 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:15
+0530
allegations in the present complaint are grave in nature, involving abuse of official authority by police officials, violation of personal liberty, and disregard of judicial orders. Therefore, the evidence is required to be scrutinized with due care, though not with suspicion merely because the accused are police officials.
15. The Notice under section 448/323/506 (part 1)/ 342/34 IPC have been framed against the accused persons. For offences under section 448/323/506 (part 1)/ 342/34 IPC, the complainant has to prove beyond reasonable doubt following ingredients.
16. Section 448 prescribes punishment for house trespass. House trespass defined under section 442 IPC as, "Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit 'housetrespass'." Criminal trespass has been defined in Section 441 IPC as, "Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence is said to commit 'criminal trespass'."
17. Thus, it is necessary for an offence punishable u/s 448 IPC that essential ingredients of criminal trespass and house trespass must CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 14 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:14
+0530
be fulfilled. For commission of criminal trespass three essential ingredients have to be fulfilled which are as follows:
1) unlawful entry into or upon property in possession of another;
2) if such entry is lawful then unlawfully remaining upon such property;
3) such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent: (i) to commit of offence or; (ii) to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property.
18. In the instant case, the complainant has alleged that the accused person had forcibly entered his house. Perusal of testimony of CW3 Bakshish Singh revealed that it was his mother who addressed the door bell and saw from the first floor that there were police officials outside the house, who threatened and misbehaved with her and she then opened the door and at that time CW-3 was sleeping in his room. Thus, the eyewitnesses to the incident of unlawful entry was the mother and sister-in- law of CW-3. However, these two witnesses were never examined and cross-examined as a witness. Consequently, the version of CW-3 regarding the alleged forcible entry is hearsay in nature, as he did not personally witness the incident. Therefore, the allegation of unlawful entry by the accused persons has not been proved.
19. With respect to second and third ingredient of house trespass i.e. a) if such entry is lawful then unlawfully remaining upon such property;
b) such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent: (i) to commit of offence or; (ii) to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property.
CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 15 of 24
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA RAI
PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:15
+0530
20. The CW3 Bakshish Singh in his testimony deposed that the accused persons after entering their house, came to their respective rooms and brought them to the drawing room where the accused persons had caught hold of male members and his sister in law and his wife who was then pregnant was pushed by the accused B.S. Kushwah and by two other policemen. He further deposed that he along with his brothers namely, Jasbir Singh and Gurvinder Singh were then beaten up by the accused persons. At this juncture, it is pertinent to discuss the second offence under which notice was framed i.e. offence of voluntarily causing hurt punishable under section 323 IPC. Sections 323 IPC are reproduced as follows:
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.-
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
21. To prove the offence under Section 323 IPC, prosecution is re- quired to prove that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the com- plainant. Hurt is defined U/s 319 IPC for which bodily pain, disease or in- firmity is to be shown on the body of the complainant.
22. In the present case, the complainant has not filed any photo- graphs or MLC to show that the complainant or his family members had suffered any injury or infirmities. CW2 Amarjeet Singh deposed that when he went to PS he saw the complainant, CW-3 and their brother Gurvinder Singh in poor physical condition. However, in his cross examination, he CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 16 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:13
+0530
specifically stated that he did not witness the incident. The fact that CW-2 saw the complainant and his family members in poor physical condition does not itself sufficiently prove ingredients of section 319. Moreover, in his complaint to the DCP dated 29.02.1996 (Mark CW3/C) and order dated 29.02.1996 of the then Ld. MM (Mark CW3/B), the complainant did not mentioned the fact that he and his family members were beaten and manhandled by the accused persons Thus, the offence of voluntarily caus- ing hurt punishable under section 323 IPC and 448 IPC are not made out against the accused persons.
23. With respect to third offence i.e. offence of criminal intimida- tion punishable under section 506 IPC. To bring home an offence under Section 506, I.P.C. the complainant is required to prove (a) that the ac- cused threatened the victim; (b) that this threatening was with any injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the victim is interested; (c) that this threatening was intended to cause alarm to the victim or to cause the victim to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; (d) that the victim has in fact been alarmed by the threat; the threat to injury may be in relation to reputation of a deceased person.
24. In Manik Taneja v State of Karnataka (2015) 7 SCC 423, the Hon'ble Apex Court Held as under:
"In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 17 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:14
+0530
public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC."
25. Thus, for conviction of accused persons under section 506 IPC, the intention of the accused that has to be considered i.e. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the applica-
CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 18 of 24
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA RAI
PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:16
+0530
tion of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant.
26. CW-3 Bakshish Singh in his examination had stated that the ac- cused persons had threatened and misbehaved with his mother in order to gain entry in the house. He also deposed that he and his family members were threatened by the presence of accused person. However, his testi- mony does not disclose the specific words used or conduct by the accused which could constitute a threat. Also, it is not evident from the testimonies of CW-2 and CW-3 that threat was with respect to injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the victim is interested which had caused alarm to the com- plainant. Mere bald allegation that accused persons had threatened the complainant and his family members does not fulfill the ingredient of of- fence of criminal intimidation as defined under section 503 IPC. Thus, the offence of criminal intimidation punishable u/s 506 IPC is also not proved against the accused persons.
27. The notice against the accused persons have also been framed under section 342 IPC which prescribes the punishment for wrongful Con- finement. The expression 'wrongful confinement' is defined under section 340 IPC as:
" 340. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits is CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 19 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:15
+0530
said to have committed the offence of wrongful confinement."
Thus, The essential ingredients of the offence of wrongful confinement are:
1. The accused should have wrongfully restrained the complainant (i.e. the complainant was prevented from the proceeding in any direction).
2. Such wrongful restraint was to prevent the complainant from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits beyond which he or she has the right to proceed.
28. The testimony of C W-3 Bakshish Singh reveals that when the accused persons had taken complainant, CW-3 and his brother Gurvinder Singh to the Police station, they informed the accused persons about anticipatory bail order dated 25.01.1996 mark CW3/A, (which has been destroyed by the order dated 16.09.2025 of committee on Record Room, Digitization and Weeding Out. Ex X-1, thus can be read in evidence as per section 65 Evidence Act, 1872) vide which the complainant was granted bail. He deposed that his mother had also shown the copy of abovementioned bail order to the accused person, however the accused persons detained the complainant even after being informed about the order. This fact was corroborated by CW-2 Amarjeet Singh.CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 20 of 24
Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:13
+0530
29. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons had argued that the accused B.S. Kushwah was not aware of the anticipatory bail order dated 25.01.1996 and neither is presence is marked in the said order. Ld Defence Counsels further submits that the complainant was produced before the Ld Magistrate on 29.02.1996. Thus, the detention of complainant by the accused persons were in discharge of their official functions as police officers and did not commit any wrongful act as they were not aware of the anticipatory bail order dated 25.01.1996.
30. The argument of the learned defence counsel that the accused B.S. Kushwah were unaware of the anticipatory bail order cannot be accepted. Once the existence of such an order was brought to notice of accused persons by the complainant's family members, it became incumbent upon the accused B. S. Kushwah, who was an investigating officer in said FIR, to verify the same before detaining the complainant. Moreover, the Investigating Officer (IO), being in charge of the investigation, is expected to remain aware of all relevant proceedings and applications filed before the court, particularly when the investigation is still pending. In the present case, accused B.S. Kushwah was the Investigating Officer in FIR No. 96/95, PS Geeta Colony, in which the complainant was an accused and the anticipatory bail order dated 25.01.1996 pertained to the said FIR. Therefore, it was his duty to verify or be aware of the existence of such an order before effecting arrest or detention of the complainant. Further, the evidence on record indicates that the anticipatory bail was granted on 25.01.1996, whereas the complainant was arrested on 29.02.1996, i.e. one month after the date of order of anticipatory bail. In this circumstance, this is by no stretch of imagination CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 21 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:13
+0530
could be held that accused B.S. Kushwah had no knowledge of said anticipatory bail order. Thus the offence of wrongful confinement is made out against the accused B.S. Kushwah.
31. The Defence has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.C. Manjunath & Ors. v. Seetaram (Criminal Appeal No. 1759 of 2025) to argue that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required. However, it is pertinent to note that the question of sanction has already been decided by the Ld. Revision Court vide orders dated 12.01.2009 and 08.08.2024. Therefore, the said contention cannot be re- agitated at this stage.
32. With regard to Accused Karamvir, Virender and Zahur, their role is distinguishable from that of the accused BS Kushwah. As noted above, the accused BS Kushwah was the investigating officer in FIR No. 96/95 and has a primary duty to be aware about the Court proceedings/bail proceedings especially during investigation whereas the above named ac- cused were subordinate police officials acting in their official capacity in the present case. They were merely police witnesses to arrest. Thus they did not have duty to aware of every Court order in the aforesaid FIR. Also the prosecution/complainant has failed to prove knowledge on the part of accused persons namely Karamvir, Zahur and Virender that they had knowledge of the bail order and acted deliberately in ignorance of that or- der. Also to invoke Section 34 of the IPC, common intention followed by active participation in commission of crime has to be proved. Furthermore, the testimonies of CW2 and CW3 failed to establish any active participa- tion on part of the accused Karamvir, Virender and Zahur. As per CW3, CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 22 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:16
+0530
these accused persons were merely the members of alleged raiding party, that visited the house of complainant. Mere presence of above mentioned accused persons in raiding party does not per se fasten criminal liability for the offence of wrongful confinement punishable U/s 342 IPC. In the ab- sence of any cogent evidence regarding any overt individual act of the ac- cused Karamvir, Virender and Zahur in the arrest and detention of the com- plainant, the offence U/s 342 IPC is not made out against the accused Karamvir, Virender and Zahur.
33. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has established beyond doubt that on the night intervening 28th and 29th February 1996, accused B.S. Kushwah (then SI) of PS Geeta Colony, had detained the complainant in the police lockup despite the fact that anticipatory bail was granted to the complainant, and hence, in doing so, had committed the offence of wrongful confinement punishable under section 342 IPC. However, the prosecution has failed to prove charges against accused persons namely Karamvir, Virender and Zahur Ahmed beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
34. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution/complainant has failed to prove the charge under section 448/323/506 (Part 1)/342/34 IPC against the accused persons namely Karamvir S/o Sh. Ramphal, Virender, S/o Late Sh. Subey Singh and Zahur Ahmed, S/o Late Sh. Kare Khan. However, prosecution/ Complainant has successfully proved the charge CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 23 of 24 Digitally signed by PRERNA RAI PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:15
+0530
under Section 342 IPC against the accused persons namely B.S. Kushwah, S/o Late Sh. Hom Singh.
35. In view of the above discussions, the accused persons namely Karamvir S/o Sh. Ramphal, Virender, S/o Late Sh. Subey Singh and Zahur Ahmed, S/o Late Sh. Kare Khan are hereby acquitted for offences punishable under section 448/323/506 (Part1)/342/34 of IPC and accused B.S. Kushwah, S/o Late Sh. Hom Singh is convicted for the offence of Wrongful Confinement Punishable under section 342 of IPC and acquitted for the offence under section 448/323/506 (Part1)/34 of IPC.
Announced in open Court (Prerna Rai) on 08.05.2026 JMFC-02 (East)/KKD Courts/Delhi
NOTE: This judgment contains 24 pages and each page has been signed by me.
CT Cases 49063/2016 JASBIR SINGH Vs. B.S Kushwah SI GEETA COLONY Page 24 of 24
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA RAI
PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.05.08
17:23:14
+0530