Wrong arrest location on memo costs Delhi Police, as court grants bail to man
Advocate Govind Sharma, who appeared for the accused, argued that nothing had been recovered from his client. He further claimed that the date of arrest had also been changed by a day
2 min read
When the court asked the Investigating Officer (IO) in the case about the place of arrest, he submitted that he was under training at that time and had "wrongly mentioned the place of arrest in the memo" (Representative image)Highlighting that the place of arrest was mentioned erroneously in the arrest memo of a man in judicial custody, a Delhi court recently granted the accused bail citing a violation of “constitutional safeguards”.
In an order dated August 23, Judicial Magistrate First Class P Bhargav Rao of Karkardooma court remarked, “It is clear from the query that the place of arrest has been wrongly mentioned on the arrest memo which is a new ground, which has been brought to the notice of the court, which undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s case at the threshold and violates the procedural and constitutional safeguards.”
The court granted bail to accused Mohd Chand, who had been in judicial custody for four months owing to alleged offences of theft and for house trespass.
When the court asked the Investigating Officer (IO) in the case about the place of arrest, he submitted that he was under training at that time and had “wrongly mentioned the place of arrest in the memo”.
Advocate Govind Sharma, who appeared for the accused, argued that nothing had been recovered from his client. He further claimed that the date of arrest had also been changed by a day.
“In view of the above, since no recovery has been made from the accused and the accused is in JC (judicial custody) since 22-04-2025, accused Mohd Chand be admitted to bail out furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs 25,000,” the court said.
The IO, on the other hand, submitted that the accused could clearly be seen in the CCTV footage accessed from the spot of the alleged theft. The public prosecutor had opposed the bail plea of the accused stating that the offence was non-bailable in nature and also that Chand may get involved in similar offences if released on bail.
You May Like
