Importance of accurate records and compliance with SOPs in the bail process, caution against immediate disciplinary actions without ascertaining the actual facts from the Police Department.

JUDGMENT :

Anish Dayal, J.

This petition has been filed for setting aside order dated 23rd February, 2023, 25th February, 2023, and 15th March, 2023 passed by the Ld. ASJ-03, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Bail Application No. 551/2023 to the extent where the Ld. ASJ has called for Action Taken Report (ATR) from the Commissioner of Police and/or the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Further, relief is sought for setting aside directions by the Ld. ASJ for conducting inquiries against the petitioner and other police officers as also expunging of remarks and/or observations made in the said order relating to the police officers.

2. The background facts related to an FIR bearing No. 83/2023 PS Chitranjan Park registered under Sections 33/52 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 against the accused Prince. The accused filed the bail application seeking regular bail. On 23rd February, 2023, the Ld. ASJ while hearing the bail application noted that as per the previous involvement report of the accused, he was shown to be involved in 17 cases, but status of only 5 cases had been mentioned. The Ld. ASJ adverted to the Standard Operating Procedure dated 29th January, 2021 issued by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police issuing directions that all SHOs of South District were directed to complete the registers and Crime and Criminal Record of CCTNS of the respective police stations. Also, the record of the SCRB (State Crime Record Bureau) may also be updated expeditiously on regular basis. For this, it was directed that the SHOs shall personally liaise with the ACP/CRO to complete/update the record in SCRB. In the event any element of information in relation to a person is not complete regarding a particular FIR, the IO shall obtain the updated status from the concerned police station, prison, or court, and file additional information-sheet separately signed by him indicating such updated status, without making any interpolations in the SCRB report. It was further directed that before an SCRB report is filed, the SHO of the concerned police station shall counter-sign the SCRB report and the additional information-sheet, if any. This was as per the procedure laid down by this Court while hearing Bail Application No. 2470/2020 titled “Ravi Kumar @ Shooter v. State (NCT of Delhi)” vide order dated 16th December, 2020.

3. The Ld. ASJ noted that the SHO and IO PS CR Park had failed to comply with the said order as well as the SOPs, and directed DCP (South) to take action against SHO and IO PS C.R. Park for non-compliance of the said order and SOP and filed an ATR. Before the next date of hearing 25th February, 2023, a report was submitted by the DCP (South) noting that lapses were found on part of the SHO and IO for non-compliance of the order dated 12th September, 2022 and the SOP dated 29th January, 2021 as also of SHO Kotla Mubarakpur for not updating the record of the SCRB. Consequently, an Explanation Calling Notice (ECN) was being issued to the SHO C.R. Park and SHO Kotla Mubarakpur for non-compliance of the above, and a show-cause notice for Censure was being issued to IO PS C.R. Park for submitting the previous conviction report without verifying the record. An updated involvement report was directed to be filed through the IO before the Court on 25th February, 2023.

4. On 25th February, 2023, the Ld. ASJ noted that an updated SCRB report has been filed which stated that out of 17 cases where the accused has been shown as being involved, the accused was found involved in only one case. 11 out of those cases, the accused were reported as untraced whereas, the accused has been shown as an acquitted in other two cases as well as not found involved in one more. In yet another case, the accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergone. The Ld. ASJ noted that the earlier involvement report of the accused presented a totally different scenario and was misleading and could have impacted the decision on bail. Despite noting the