0

A police officer before arrest has to be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent from committing any further offence: High Court of Delhi

A police officer before arrest, has to be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence or for proper investigation of the case or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by JUSTICE ASHA MENON in the case of SH. MUKHTER AHAMED vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [BAIL APPLN. 720/2022] on 10.03.2022.

The facts of the case are that one Arif was arrested by the police with a log of red sandalwood/red sanders who named the applicant as having booked his train tickets. Arif was a freelancer who used to take leather and other goods from the applicant to sell in various parts of the country to earn a living and it is due to this connection that the tickets were booked on the mobile phone of the wife of the applicant. Further, FIR was registered for an offence under Sections 379/411 IPC and it was stated in the Status Report filed by the prosecution that the log of red sandalwood/red sanders was smuggled and that Arif was found without a transit permit to move the wood from Vishakhapatnam to Delhi.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that under Sections 2, 33 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, no case would be made out against the applicant and in any case, the punishment prescribed was only imprisonment for six months or fine. Thus the applicant could not be arrested. It was submitted that the applicant had clean antecedents and there was no accusation or record of his having indulged in any similar activities. Thus, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

The respondent’s counsel opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the applicant has not participated in investigations, and even after his first application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court.

The Court held that it is not a case in which the applicant deserves pre-arrest bail. The anticipatory bail application was accordingly dismissed and observed that, “A person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, has to be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat