The Delhi High Court held that the Police Post is not where citizens should attack public servants, but rather where they go to report their disputes with one another through Justice Talwant Singh in the case of Naved v. State (BAIL APPLN. 3713/2021)
FACTS OF THE CASE:
According to Sections 186, 353, 307, 147, 148, 149, 379, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860, the petitioner in the current instance requested bail. The petitioner was allegedly detained in a fabricated and false case, according to the submission.
The complainant was present at Police Post Inderlok when one individual, Kale, encountered him there and made a complaint about the theft from his shop and Kale being physically assaulted by Mohsin, Salman, Naved, etc. Additionally, one Sadeqin was transported to the police station, where SI Pankaj Thakran conducted an official investigation. In the meantime, Mohsin, Naved, and other individuals arrived at the station and began shouting harsh words. SI Pankaj Thakran attempted to calm them down, but in vain.
It was claimed that the petitioner was holding a pistol and “that other others were carrying lathi. The aforementioned individuals were pushed by SI Thakran with the assistance of other police officers, but they returned and threw stones. At that point, SI Pankaj Thakran fired with his service pistol, and the applicant also fired at the same time.
Then, SI Pankaj Thakran pulled an AK-47 weapon from his office, and when the accused saw this, they all ran away. Another shot was then fired, and as a result, SI Pankaj Thakran was taken to the hospital. The current accused was taken into custody after being reported by SI, and he has been there ever since.
The complainant in the current case was a public employee whose place of employment, the Police Post, was attacked by a group of persons who were armed with lathis and dandas, and the present petitioner was holding a firearm in his hand.
The Court observed, “The Police Post is a place where people go to lodge complaints of the disputes amongst them, and it is not a place where the public servants are supposed to be attacked with firearms, Dandas and Lathis or by pelting stones on them.”
The Bench observed that the petitioner has a prior history of involvement in criminal cases and that the police officers were performing their duties. The Court further noted that it was impossible to rule out the chance that the petitioner would threaten the witnesses, commit the same crime again, or flee from justice. According to the High Court, the position given to the current petitioner was very different from that of his other coworkers, hence the case was not eligible for bail even on the premise of parity.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY REETI SHETTY