Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To A Police Constable Accused In Dacoity Case
The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to a police constable from Uttar Pradesh in an alleged offence for loot and dacoity charges.
The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the plea filed by Constable Dharmendra Singh. The FIR filed in 2019 alleged that the petitioner along with others including Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan had looted the complainant's house and physically assaulted the complainant.
AOR Namit Saxena appeared for the Appellant-Accused while AAG Ardhendhumauli Kumar Prasad appeared for the State before the Court.
It was argued on behalf of the accused that the chargesheet has been filed and 45 Prosecution Witnesses are to be examined. There is no requirement for custodial interrogation of the accused anymore.
The apex court found that the FIR was filed after a delay of three years and the petitioner is a Police Constable. The counter affidavit filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the only role assigned to the petitioner was his presence along with the others and such of the persons who are alleged to have dragged the occupants outside the house have already been granted bail.
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also keeping in mind that the co-accused whose bail has been cancelled, and that order having been stayed, we consider it appropriate that the appellant need not be arrested on the charge-sheet having been filed and shall join the trial and assist in early conclusion of the trial," the Bench held.
A Petition before the apex court was filed by the appellant-accused assailing the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court which had rejected the anticipatory bail application of the accused.
The appellant was accused of the offences under Sections 448, 452, 427, 323, 504, 506, 395, and 120B IPC. It was contended by the accused before the Court that the allegations contained in the FIR were prima-facie fictitious and concocted as this was not a case of delay of a few days or months in reporting the incident to the police, but there had been an inordinate delay of three years from the date of the alleged incident in reporting the incident to the police with no plausible and satisfactory explanation for such inordinate delay in the FIR.
The appellant had prayed before the apex court that the impugned judgment of the High Court contained errors and was otherwise bad on facts and in law and deserved to be set aside.
Cause Title: Constable Dharmendra @Dharmendra Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh