[Bulli Bai case] Explain difference between FIRs in Mumbai and Delhi: Delhi court to Delhi Police

A Delhi court on Friday directed a senior official of the Delhi Police to state the difference between the first information reports (FIRs) registered in Mumbai and Delhi in relation to the Bulli Bai app case [Vishal Jha v. State]..The direction came from Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana who was hearing the anticipatory bail plea of Vishal Jha, the first person to be arrested in the case.During the hearing today, the judge asked Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) about the differences in the two FIRs. The APP turned to the investigation officer (IO) of the case. On not getting a satisfactory reply, the Court asked a Deputy Commissioner of Police to file a detailed affidavit setting out the differences in the two FIRs. “The concerned IO has not been able to assist this court with respect to the aforesaid issue. Consequently, I deem it appropriate to call for a report from the concerned DCP in this regard. Accordingly worthy DCP is requested to file a detailed reply, by way of an affidavit, clearly depicting the difference between subject matter of the two FIRs and also depicting that which FIR is anterior in point of time," the order said. The matter will be heard next on January 22, Saturday. .Meanwhile, the Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the Jha..Earlier today, a Mumbai court rejected the bail of three persons, including Jha, in a similar case registered by the Mumbai Police, and said that merely because they were not the creators of the app, they could not be termed innocent.Jha is already under custody in the Mumbai Police FIR registered against him based on a complaint made by a different person on the same issue..During the hearing, Judge Rana repeatedly asked the Delhi Police if it followed a policy or framework within which such cases were investigated."We are public institutions, we can’t pick and chose things. We need to have a proper policy. We need to have a proper justification," Judge Rana remarked in the hearing.The order, that followed later in the day, took note of the reply filed by the Delhi Police’s IO, and stated that based upon the “same facts an FIR was registered in Mumbai” and the case concerned is under investigation..“Upon specific inquiry from the IO by this court the only point of distinction informed by him is that the complainant in the two cases are different. However, mere difference in the name of complainant would not make the two FIRs on the same cause of action legally permissible,” the order said..After referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union of India, the Court observed,“Therefore, evidently, a second FIR based upon the same cause of action is legally not permissible. Thus, for a just and legal adjudication of the instant application it becomes mandatory for this court to resolve the issue as to which of the two FIRs, i.e., one pending investigation in Mumbai and one pending investigation in Delhi, can be legally investigated,” it stated..Jha, the first person to be arrested in the Bulli Bai case, is currently in judicial custody in Mumbai.The Delhi Police had registered a separate first information report based on the complaint of journalist Ismat Ara, one of women targeted by the Bulli Bai app, for offences under Sections 153A (promoting enmity on grounds of religion etc), 153B (imputations prejudicial to national-integration), 354A (sexual harassment) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code..Jha sought reprieve apprehending arrest by the Delhi Police, and argued in his plea filed through advocate Shivam Deshmukh that he was framed in the matter.“The creator of the Bulli Bai app is someone else who has already been arrested by the investigating agency,” the plea said..The plea contended that even if for argument's sake it is accepted that the applicant was in any way involved in the matter, the role of the applicant is limited to following the Bulli Bai app, and the same does not constitute any offence..[Read Order]