Court grants bail to 3 accused noting non-compliance with mandate of law
Delhi's Tis Hazari Court has granted bail to three accused after noting the non-compliance of the mandate related to service of notice under CrPC before arrest.
ANI
Jul 04, 2024 23:27 IST
New Delhi [India], July 4 (ANI): Delhi's Tis Hazari Court has granted bail to three accused after noting the non-compliance of the mandate related to service of notice under CrPC before arrest. Three were arrested in a case of house trespass and causing harm. This matter pertains to an FIR registered at Karol Bagh.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Shipra Dhankar on Wednesday granted bail to Rohit, Surendra, and Mantoo after noting that the mandate of Section 41A CrPC was not complied with by the Investigating Officer (IO).
Advocate Rishabh Jain, while arguing on the bail, submitted that no notice under Section 41A CrPC was served upon Surender and Mantoo.
The court has directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned DCP for intimation and action.
The counsel submitted that though a notice was served to Rohit and he was complying with the terms of the notice, despite it, he was arrested by the Investigation Officer (IO).
On the other hand, the IO submitted that Rohit was directed to produce other accused persons on June 10 but he did not comply with the direction. He conceded that the accused person appeared at the police station.
The reason for arresting Rohit was that he could not produce accused persons other than Surender and Mantoo. Surender and Mantoo were arrested because they did not have a permanent address in Delhi.
The court said, "The reason for arrest given by the IO doesn't seem justifiable, especially considering that CrPc does not provide the absence of a permanent address as a ground of arrest. IO could have served notice upon accused Surender and Mantoo and taken measures to ensure their presence before him."
"As far as accused Rohit is concerned, it appears that he complied with the notice up to some extent by producing two accused and was thereby cooperating in the investigation," the court said.
"In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that IO did not comply with the mandate of Section 41A CrPC." the judicial magistrate said. (ANI)
Get the App
