Delhi High Court: In a case wherein a police officer got injured due to an attack by an illegal weapon out of the police station, Talwant Singh, J., expressed that, Police Post is a place where people go to lodge complaints of the disputes amongst them, and it is not a place where the public servants are supposed to be attacked.
In the present case, the petitioner sought bail in a case filed under Sections 186, 353, 307, 147, 148, 149, 379 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Further, it was submitted that the petitioner was arrested in a false and fabricated case.
The complainant was present in Police Post Inderlok when one person, Kale met him in the said Police Post and made complaint against Mohsin, Salman, Naved, etc., about the loot in his shop and Kale being beaten up by these persons. Further, one Sadeqin was brought to the police Post, where SI Pankaj Thakran made some formal enquiry and, in the meantime, Mohsin, Naved, etc., reached the police post and started shouting in abusive language; SI Pankaj Thakran tried to calm the, but all in vain.
It was stated that the petitioner had pistol in his hand and others were armed with Lathi/Dande. The said persons were pushed by SI Thakran alongwith the help of other police officials, but they came back again pelting stones and then SI Pankaj Thakran fired with his government pistol and during that period applicant also fired from his pistol.
Thereafter, SI Pankaj Thakran took out an AK-47 rifle lying in his office and seeing this, all accused persons fled away from there and at that time another shot was fired, after which SI Pankaj Thakran was admitted to hospital.
On the statement of SI, the present accused was arrested and since then he is behind the bars.
Analysis and Decision
The present case was the one where a public servant was the complainant, whose place of posting i.e. the Police Post was attacked by a group of people, who were armed with Dandas, Lathis and the present petitioner was holding a fire arm in his hand.
High Court expressed that,
The Police Post is a place where people go to lodge complaints of the disputes amongst them, and it is not a place where the public servants are supposed to be attacked with firearms, Dandas and Lathis or by pelting stones on them.
The Bench noted that there was a previous history of the petitioner being involved in criminal cases and the police officials were doing their duty.
Additionally, the Court stated that, the possibility of the petitioner indulging in threatening the witnesses or indulging in the same crime again and fleeing from justice cannot be ruled out.
In High Court’s opinion, the present case was not fit for bail even on the ground of parity as the role assigned to the present petitioner was quite different from his other associates. [Naved v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1759, decided on 11-5-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
For the petitioner: Juned Alam, Advocate.
For the respondent: Tarang Srivastava, APP with SI Suman Prasad, PS Sarai Rohilla.