0

A bail can be granted if all the evidence is documentary in nature and has also been recovered from the accused: High Court of Delhi

A bail can be granted if there are no allegations that the petitioner has tried to tamper with the evidence or is a flight risk. All the evidence is documentary in nature and even as per the prosecution the material evidence has also been recovered and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required as nothing is to be recovered from him and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR in the case of ANKIT NARANG vs. STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [BAIL APPLN. 3710/2021] on 10.03.2022.

The facts of the case are that a complaint of one Sunil Kumar Singh, Superintending Engineer was received in the office of ACB, Delhi in which it has been alleged that Sh. Attar Singh Kaushal, and others while working in Delhi Jal Board, GNCT of Delhi fraudulently processed the claim of payment of six work orders issued separately to contractors. During site inspection and scrutiny of files related to tendered works at Shalimar Bagh SPS, gross irregularities like fraudulent release of payment in full/part made without execution of work or execution of work in violation of contract was found. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail under Section 7 of P.C. Act and u/s 420/120 B of IPC.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the work done by the applicant/petitioner was duly inspected by the concerned official from time to time and the same was duly entered in the measurement book as per the rule and after the successful completion of the work the payment was made by the Delhi Jal Board. It was further submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and has provided all the relevant information to the IO and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

The respondent’s counsel submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation but he has not cooperated in the investigation. It was further submitted that during the investigation old material register of Shalimar Bagh SPS was seized and on examination of old material register it was found that there was no entry regarding the alleged old replaced sluice valve in the register.

The Court held that according to the circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required as nothing is to be recovered from him. The Court observed that, “a bail can be granted if there are no allegations that the petitioner has tried to tamper with the evidence or is a flight risk. All the evidence is documentary in nature and even as per the prosecution the material register has also been recovered and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required as nothing is to be recovered from him.”

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