Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may record any confession in the course of an investigation any time before the commencement of the inquiry- Delhi High Court
Under Section 164 of CRPC any magistrate can record the confessional statement either before the course of investigation of during the course and it is well versed under law that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force , the power levied is misused by the authority in some scenarios which was dealt in the YASHPAL SINGH VS STATE (BAIL APPLN.4089/2021), the hon’ble Delhi high headed by the single bench of HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
The facts of the case are as follows ,the present application seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in relation under Section 308 /376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that the allegations levelled against the applicant are wholly false, that the prosecutrix indulged in sexual relations with the applicant despite being a married woman and that it was on the insistence of the prosecutrix that she became pregnant .The prosecutrix started making demands of money from the, to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs and also stated that if the applicant did not pay the amount to her, she would implicate him in a false case.
The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that The applicant submits that the prosecutrix had been building pressure on him to meet her and when he denied meeting her illegitimate and illegal demands, she went to the Police Station, Sunlight Colony and started calling the applicant on his mobile phone from outside of the police station and that when the applicant denied meeting her registered a complaint and started demanding Rs.15 Lakhs threatening that otherwise she would file a false case against him and he will lose his government job.
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he prosecutrix submitted that she had been giving repeated information to the Investigation Officers of the case it that persons known to her have been receiving threats in relation to the present case as given on behalf of the applicant. The prosecutrix further submitted whilst opposing the bail application that the applicant would harass her and had been torturing her repeatedly ,as to why the applicant had been informing the persons known to the prosecutrix that the child belonged to the applicant, stated that the applicant had been stating that he would teach her a lesson and would also teach her spouse a lesson stating that after he got bail.
The Hon’ble High court opined “that As has already been observed hereinabove, through the FIR and through the statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, 1973 of the prosecutrix, there is no mention in the statement of the prosecutrix of the applicant and the prosecutrix having checked in any hotel as put forth by the status report appropriate to allow the applicant to be released on anticipatory bail, hence the application is disposed.”
Judgement reviewed by Pratikshya Pattnaik