Delhi court flags incorrect involvement of accused in 17 FIRs; asks police to correct records

A Delhi court on Tuesday granted regular bail to an accused man after finding that the Delhi Police had wrongly shown him as involved in at least 17 e-FIRs despite there being no arrest or charge sheet in those cases [State v. Ajay Rathi]

The court also directed the Delhi Commissioner of Police to take corrective measures regarding the inaccurate criminal involvement records.

The direction came while the court was hearing a regular bail application filed by Ajay Rathi (accused).

In its July 7 order, Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri of Saket courts found that although Rathi had initially been shown as involved in 36 cases, verification revealed that he was actually involved in only five cases, including the present FIR.

"From involvement record of accused as filed by IO, it is clear that false involvement of accused has been shown in atleast 17 E-FIRs lodged in year 2017 in PS Mehrauli in SCRB record maintained by Delhi Police as without arrest of an accused in a FIR, it cannot be said that accused was involved in such FIR," the court said.

The order was passed on a regular bail plea filed by Rathi in connection with a first information report (FIR) registered at the Maidan Garhi police station.

According to the accused, the FIR arose out of a long-standing family dispute with his mother, who is the complainant.

Rathi's counsel told the Court that he had gone to her house with his wife and other relatives to inform her that she was going to become a grandmother.

However, an altercation allegedly broke out, following which the FIR was registered.

Rathi claimed that the allegations of theft were levelled to prevent him from asserting any right over the property where the complainant resides.

Rathi's counsel further submitted that the police had falsely shown him as involved in several criminal cases despite his actual criminal antecedents being far fewer.

It was alleged that the inaccurate involvement record had been prepared due to a dispute between Rathi and an Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP).

Opposing the bail application, the prosecution submitted that the FIR specifically named Rathi and that CCTV footage showed him entering the complainant's house.

The Court noted that the prosecution had initially claimed that Rathi was involved in 36 criminal cases, which was disputed by the accused. It therefore directed the investigating officer to file a verified involvement report.

Upon verification, the Court found that Rathi had been wrongly shown as involved in at least 17 e-FIRs registered at Mehrauli police station in 2017.

The Court further said that the updated involvement report showed that Rathi was involved in only five cases, three of which had already been closed.

"Updated involvement report of accused was called as involvement record furnished by accused differed from record as mentioned in reply filed by IO. Involvement record of accused may have impacted outcome of present bail application but now it is clear as even admitted by IO that accused is involved in 5 cases including present case. Three of the cases where accused was involved have been disposed of as per updated record of involvement of accused filed by IO."

The Court also took note of the fact that two co-accused in the present Fir had already been granted anticipatory bail after hotel records and CCTV footage showed that they were elsewhere on the date of the alleged crime.

It further noted that two other co-accused had been granted regular bail.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court granted regular bail to Rathi.

Additional Public Prosecutor Pravin Rahul appeared for the State.

Advocates Mayank Sharma and Vishal Yadav appeared for Rathi.

[Read Order]