DELHI HIGH COURT
Asha Menon, J.
Sunny and Ors. —Applicants
versus
State of N.C.T. of Delhi —Respondent
Bail Appln. 1107 of 2022, Bail Appln. 1108 of 2022, Bail Appln. 1111 of 2022, Bail Appln. 1113 of 2022, Bail Appln. 1114 of 2022, Bail Appln. 1148 of 2022, Bail Appln. 1149 of 2022, Bail Appln. 1125 of 2022
Decided on 12.4.2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Continued detention of 14 days – The applicants have been in custody for 14 days, today being the 14th day and the continued custody of the applicants in jail is not called for only because some investigations are still going on.
(2) Conditions justifying arrest – conditions justifying arrest would be to prevent the person from making any inducement or threat to any person acquainted with the facts or that his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured.
(3) Continued Detention – The continued detention of the applicants in judicial custody is clearly not required for proper investigation of the offences, since the nature of the evidence is such, there is no possibility of the applicants tampering with the evidence or inducing or threatening any witness.
(4) Allegations – To determine whether the applicants are entitled to bail, an in-depth and detailed analysis of the nature of the allegations is not called for.
(5) 41A Cr. P.C and release on bail – the non-compliance of and non-issuance of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. would amount to contempt being committed by the concerned Police Officer and would also justify the release on bail of an accused.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Section 3 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 186/188/353/332/143/147/149 – Assault, obstruction and Criminal Force on Public Servant – Non-compliance of and Non-issuance of notice under 41(1)(a) Cr.P.C – Applicants seek bail for the alleged forceful entry on CM’s residence by causing criminal force and obstruction on Police officials – Whether there was non-compliance of Section 41(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C – On facts, there has been no adherence to the requirements of this Section, at the time of the arrest of the applicants – Thus, the continued detention of the applicants in judicial custody is clearly not required for proper investigation of the offences, since the nature of the evidence is such, there is no possibility of the applicants tampering with the evidence or inducing or threatening any witness. Furthermore, nothing has been brought on the record by the respondent/State which suggests that the applicants would not appear before the court when required – Here, the allegations are that the protestors have vandalised some of the CCTV cameras and an arm of a boom barrier and had also smeared paint on the main gate of the CM Residence – There is no allegation of damage to public property through arson and fire or other means on a scale that would clearly be a far more serious matter than what has been alleged against the applicants – The applicants have been in custody for 14 days, today being the 14th day – Thus, the continued custody of the applicants in jail is not called for only because some investigations are still going on – Applications allowed, Bail granted. [Paras 24, 25, 26 to 33]

(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 439 – Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Section 3 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 186/188/353/332/143/147/149 – Assault, obstruction and Criminal Force on Public Servant – Arrest – Reasoning by Police officer – Reasoning in writing – Satisfaction has to be a written document – Police Officer is to record, while making such arrest, his reasons in writing – There is no such written document where the Investigating Officer has recorded his satisfaction on the existence of the conditions aforementioned and as provided for under Section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C – It is indeed farfetched to claim that a repeat offence would occur because of a tweet. Therefore, there is no material on which any Police Officer could be satisfied that the applicants were required to be prevented from committing any further offence – The conditions justifying arrest would be to prevent the person from making any inducement or threat to any person acquainted with the facts or that his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured – Also, as per the FIR, the barricades were jumped over by the applicants in the presence of the police, they could have been arrested then and there under Section 41(1)(a) Cr.P.C.. However, admittedly, all the applicants have been arrested subsequently at night around 9.00 or 9.30 P.M from their homes. Clearly, therefore, Section 41(1)(a) Cr.P.C. has not been applied and unless the conditions prescribed in Section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. were stated to exist, the police before arresting the applicants, had no choice but to have issued notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C.

Result: Bail granted.