A city court has pulled up the officer probing the death of a 23-year-old tourism studies graduate after the victim’s mother alleged he was “siding with the accused”. The 23-year-old was found hanging at his friend’s house in Dwarka on June 13, 2017. Eight months later, the court had ordered police to register an FIR under charges of murder, and
to conduct a thorough investigation.
On February 26, the woman filed an anticipatory bail plea. On March 22, in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Gurvinder Pal Singh, investigating officer Kuldeep Singh gave in writing that the accused woman was not required to be arrested at that stage.
“The counsel has given a statement that since the investigating officer (IO) has given in writing that, at present, the applicant/accused is not required to be arrested, he seeks to withdraw the bail application with liberty to file afresh… In view of the above submission, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn,” the sessions court noted in its March 22 order.
Meanwhile, an application was moved in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s (CMM’s) court, where the matter was being heard earlier, by the mother of the victim, expressing apprehension that the IO was “siding with the alleged persons”, and that she had not been informed of the anticipatory bail application.
On April 10, CMM Sumedh Kumar Sethi said the apprehension was “apparent” from the fact that on the previous date of hearing, the IO had told the court that he does not know why anticipatory bail application of the accused woman was withdrawn.
The court, however, noted that the application was withdrawn only after the IO gave in writing that the arrest was not required. CMM Sethi also noted that even he was not informed of the application and its subsequent dismissal.
“However strange it may seem, the IO is stating even today that he was not aware why the application was withdrawn, even though he admits that the statement of the counsel for the alleged person was recorded in his presence and the order was also passed in his presence. Equally strange is the fact that it was noted in the last date that the IO did not even bother to inform the complainant about filing of the anticipatory bail, thereby depriving her of the opportunity to be heard… Be that as it may, the IO has come up with a stranger explanation to the effect that it is not compulsory for the IO to inform the complainant about any anticipatory bail application being filed by an alleged person,” CMM Sethi said in his order.
“It is unheard of that the victim be deprived of such an opportunity to be heard despite alleging foul play and expressing apprehension against the course of investigation,” the court said.