Decoity accused granted bail in day light lot case: Ravi Drall Advocate
Falsely implicated accused in looting case granted regular bail by Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Complainant identified co-accused person in Test Identification Parade but his statements were contradictory to himself. As per contents of FIR the complainant was carrying Rs. 2 lac with him lateron during the investigation he claimed that he was carrying more than 10 lacs rupees in his scooty. As per allegeations the scooty of complainant was intercepted by accused persons at gun point and after snatching the sccoty of complainant money was taken out and the scooty was left at distance of few kilometers. Advocate Ravi Drall argued that the manner of recovery is disputed and the accused was not seen anywherein CCTV replied upon by the investigating agency. It was further argued by Advcate Ravi Drall that offence U.S 397 IPC is not made out against the Accused person as no recovery of weapon has been made from him and it is settled preposition of law that provisions of Sec. 397 IPC are attracted only against the person who “uses” the weapon during he crime.
439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.
(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct-
In case, Ashok Sagar v. State (NCT of Delhi) – 2018 SCC Online Del 9548, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that imprisonment of an accused during the course of investigation and trial is not meant to be punitive and the requirement of arrest at this stage is only to secure the cooperation of the accused and to prevent any potential prejudice being caused to the investigation if it is shown that such prejudice is likely to be caused. If no such apprehension exists, there can be no reasonable ground to arrest the accused, as incarceration would then assume a punitive avatar.