Back
Grants Bail to Accused Falsely Linked to 17 FIRs
In a scathing critique of documentation standards within the , a has granted to an accused, Ajay Rathi, while simultaneously ordering an into the "poor/false" criminal involvement records maintained by the state. The decision by Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri highlights the severe implications of administrative negligence on the liberty of citizens.
The Backdrop: A Family Feud Turns Criminal The case stems from a deepening chasm within a family. The complainant, the mother of the accused, alleged theft and criminal activity against her son and other relatives. The defense, however, presented a different narrative: the FIR was a weaponized effort to keep the accused under pressure due to a domestic dispute over residential property.
The defense counsel argued that there was no criminal intent and that the incident had been blown out of proportion. Critically, documentation submitted to the court proved that two co-accused individuals, whom the complainant placed at the scene of the purported crime, were actually in Jammu & Kashmir and Goa on the date of the incident. This discrepancy immediately cast a pall of doubt over the credibility of the ’s version of events.
The "Involvement" Controversy The most startling aspect of the proceedings was the state's claim that Rathi was involved in 36 criminal cases. When the defense challenged this assertion, the court demanded a verified record. The ensuing revealed a chaotic reality: Rathi was falsely flagged as being involved in at least 17 e-FIRs from .
In many of these instances, there was no record of the accused having been arrested or even named in a
. As the court aptly noted,
"without arrest of an accused in a FIR, it cannot be said that accused was involved in such FIR."
The updated records eventually confirmed that Rathi was actually associated with only five cases—three of which had already been disposed of.
Key Observations The court articulated its frustration with the (SCRB) records, emphasizing that such errors have tangible, life-altering consequences:
-
On police records:
"From involvement record of accused as filed by IO, it is clear that false involvement of the accused has been shown in at least 17 E-FIRs... which fact in itself causes serious shadow of doubt on version of complainant."
-
On the credibility of
:
"The complainant falsely implicated individuals who were not even in the city, which casts serious doubt on the entire narrative of the complainant."
-
On the impact of faulty data:
"The erroneous involvement record may have impacted the outcome of the present bail application."
The Court’s Directive Recognizing that the accused had remained in for approximately 1.5 months and that other co-accused had already been granted regular or , the court exercised its discretion to grant bail upon a of Rs. 25,000.
Beyond the immediate grant of liberty, the court issued a structural mandate: a copy of the order was directed to the Commissioner of Police (CP), Delhi. The CP has been tasked to take stock of the poor record-keeping practices and initiate corrective measures, with an acknowledgment of compliance required to be filed before the court by . This order serves as a stern reminder that the accuracy of police records is not merely a formality, but a fundamental pillar of justice.
