Delhi High Court - Orders
Manju Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 March, 2020
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (CRL.) 1294/2018
MANJU GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through None.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr T.P. Singh, Senior Central
Government Counsel for UOI.
Mr Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate with
Mr Satish Aggarwal, Mr Shivanshu Singh,
Mr Sheezan Hashmi, Advocates for DRI/R2.
Mr Satish Aggarwala, Senior Standing
Counsel wit Mr Gagan Vaswan, Advocate for
R2/DRI.
Mr Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel Crl. for state.
Ms Nandita Rao, ASC Crl. for state.
Insp. Ritersh Kumar, SI Dheeraj ISC Crime
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 20.03.2020 Crl. M.C. No. 5749/2020
1. Respondent no. 2 (DRI) has filed the present application, inter alia, praying that directions issued by this Court, in paragraph two of the order dated 13.03.2020, be recalled.
2. Mr Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the DRI submits that the said order dated 13.03.2020, was passed on an assumption that the officials of DRI had not been examined. He submits that in fact the officials of DRI were examined. He further submits that directions issued in the second paragraph of the said order amounts to issuing directions for arrest of the concerned officials and the same would amount to undue interference in the investigation process. He also referred to the decision in M.C. Abraham & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.: (2003) 2 SCC 649, in support of his contention that such a direction for arrest ought not to be issued.
3. The above contentions are unmerited. The order dated 13.03.2020 was passed after considering the facts of the case. The officials of DRI were reportedly examined but the investigation has not made much headway. As noticed in the said order, the allegations against the officers are serious. In addition to the allegation for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, one of the family members had also alleged that certain gold, jewellery and cash were seized by the concerned officials without any receipt. It is also alleged that the deceased had been taken to the office of the DRI by force. He had died and his body was recovered on the ground.
4. According to the DRI, the deceased had jumped from the visitor's room. The said matter is required to be investigated. It has to be ascertained whether the deceased had jumped from the said building or was thrown from the said building. If it is found that the deceased had been forcibly taken from his premises, it is necessary to examine the DRI officials who were responsible for the same. It would also be necessary to investigate whether the deceased was subjected to any coercive treatment. The DRI's version that he had voluntarily come to the office of DRI and had voluntarily jumped from their office, when no official was present, is difficult to believe.
5. It is not necessary for this Court to examine the matter in any detail at this stage. However, it is imperative that a proper investigation be conducted. The concerned officials are required to be interrogated and may be subjected to a lie detector test. If necessary, they may be arrested for the purposes of custodial interrogation.
6. The directions issued in the second paragraph of the order dated 13.03.2020 cannot be construed to mean that the DRI Officials must be arrested. The decision whether custodial interrogation is necessary, is left to the investigating agencies. However, no effort should be spared to investigate the matter. It is further directed that the investigation be carried out under the supervision of the Special C.P. Crime Branch.
7. A detailed status report be filed before the next date of hearing.
8. The application is dismissed with the aforesaid directions.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 20, 2020 pkv