Court junks Delhi cop’s bail plea for using son’s ‘mental illness to gain sympathy’

A special judge dismissed the bail application of a Delhi Police head constable, arrested by CBI in a bribery case, observing that his conduct of frivolity to gain sympathy of the court on the serious issue of his son’s mental illness did not entitle him for any leniency.

The head constable was in-charge of an investigation into an attack on two persons by a group of men at southeast Delhi’s Badarpur area. CBI had argued that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs 20,000 to dilute the case against the accused. He was arrested on June 24 by the CBI in a trap set by the investigating agency.

The accused person’s lawyers, Dr Alok Lakhanpal and Sidharth, told the court, “The accused has a right to stay with his child due to mental illness of the latter who he claims is inconsolable post detention of the accused.”

Senior public prosecutor Praneet Sharma opposed the bail application by stating that the accused person “is raising a false submission and trying to mislead the court.”

Special judge Nirja Bhatia, who dismissed the bail application, observed, “It is also pertinent at this stage to observe the conduct of frivolity with which sympathy of the court is sought to be moved on a serious issue of mental illness of an innocent child of the applicant qua which the observations above are suffice to show the back-and-forth conduct which also does not entitle him to any leniency.”

The court had called for a verification report into the allegations of his son suffering from mental illness. After perusing this report, the court stated that subsequent to March 9, 2011, no treatment record of his son was found at AIIMS.

The court also went through the police station record where the accused served to find that he was serving regularly and was also on emergency duties, commuting from his residence and no request for any relaxation from his duty to take care of his son was received.

The court observed that the child was taken to a hospital in 2016 for treatment of seizure. It added that it was material to note the contention of the prosecutor that the “accused has tried to misuse a humanitarian ground and…mislead the court.”

“However, subsequent to 2016, there is no document of diagnosis or even a prescription which is made available to suggest any linkage with the ground that the child is inconsolable and/or urgently requires care of the father as is being stated as a ground of bail,” the court said.

The court said that the allegations against the accused have graver consequences for the investigation, clearly showed an intention to impair trial in favour of the accused and “has played with the course of justice by refusing to agree to file much diluted investigation report.”

“His negotiation skills reflected through recorded transcript shows his capacity and capability to eventual possibility of his extending ill­legitimate influence on the witnesses already accused in another FIR,” the court said.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *