Delhi High Court seeks report from police on bid to arrest accused despite court protection

The Delhi High Court recently sought an explanation from Delhi Police after noting that an investigating officer was granted permission to travel to Mumbai to "search and arrest" an accused despite a court order against arresting the person [Amit Jain v State Govt of NCT of Delhi].

Justice Prateek Jalan on July 3 directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) concerned to examine how the request came to be made and approved despite the existing interim protection and submit a report to the Court.

"In these circumstances, the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police is directed to inquire into the matter and file a report before this Court regarding the circumstances in which such request came to be made and approved, despite the above position," said the Court.

The order was passed in a anticipatory bail plea filed by one Amit Jain, who is accused in a cheating case registered at Subhash Place police station. The first information report (FIR) alleges that the complainant was cheated of ₹5.63 crore in a proposed transaction involving 25,000 unlisted National Stock Exchange (NSE) shares.

During the hearing, Jain's counsel submitted additional documents, including one obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

According to Jain, the document showed that the investigating officer had sought permission from his superior officer to travel to Mumbai "for the purpose of investigation (search and arrest of the accused)" in connection with the present FIR as well as another FIR.

He contended that the request was made by the investigating officer, forwarded by the Station House Officer and approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Police on May 8, when the sessions court's interim protection from arrest was still in force.

It was further submitted that the Delhi High Court had also later granted Jain interim protection on May 14.

The High Court noted apparent defects in the permission request itself.

"There are also apparent errors and discrepancies contained therein, including relating to the destination for which permission was sought," observed the Court.

Separately, the State informed the Court that Jain had joined the investigation pursuant to the High Court's interim protection. However, it submitted that certain additional documents were still required from him.

The Court directed the investigating officer to furnish a list of the required documents to the Jain within two days.

The counsel for Jain, in turn, undertook that any such documents in his possession would be provided to the investigating agency.

The Court also permitted the complainant to place additional documents on record before the next hearing.

The matter is scheduled to be heard next on July 14.

Advcates Saurav Agrawal, Vibhu Anshuman, Ravi Sharma, Parmeet Singh, Abdul Razzaq and Siddhant Raj appeared for the accused.

Assistant Public Prosecutor Manjeet Arya along with advocate Abhimanyu Arya and Sub-Inspector Neeraj Kumar, PS Subhash Place appeared for the State.

Senior Advocate Manu Sharma and advocates Abhyuday Sharma, Nimish Chib, Rahul Lather, Deepak Rajwar, Ambar Chaurasia, Harshita Bhati represented the complainant.

[Read Order]