New Delhi, Aug 27 A Delhi court has granted bail to a man accused of assaulting a police constable on emergency PCR duty, saying the prosecution's video footage did not show the presence of a co-accused at the spot at the time of the alleged offence and questioning the unexplained delay in registering the FIR.
Additional Sessions Judge Munish Bansal was hearing the bail plea of Vipanshu Rana, who was arrested in connection with an FIR registered under various Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provisions, including those relating to assault or obstruction of a public servant.
In an order dated August 25, the court said, "The video footage of the incident does not reveal the presence of co-accused Raghav at the place of incident, as alleged by the prosecution. Even the scooty alleged to have been used during the commission of the offence is stated to have not been recovered."
According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of May 12 and May 13, constable Saurav Kumar, who was performing emergency PCR duty, responded to a call about a quarrel. When he reached the spot, he was told that two men riding a Jupiter scooter had assaulted the caller and his customers.
The constable allegedly chased the two men and intercepted them near the Baba Balaknath temple at Chander Vihar. According to the prosecution, the men refused to disclose their identities, abused and assaulted the constable, tore his uniform and fled while threatening him.
However, the court noted several discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
It observed that the video footage relied upon by the prosecution did not show the presence of a co-accused at the spot. The court also noted that the footage produced by the defence showed the complainant beating Rana with a wooden plank, a fact absent from the FIR's narration of the incident.
The court further questioned how the complainant, a police officer who allegedly chased the accused, failed to note the registration number of the two-wheeler. It also noted that the two-wheeler allegedly used in the offence was not found.
The judge expressed concern over the delay in lodging the FIR. The complainant's medical examination was conducted at around 5:30 am on May 13, but the FIR was registered only at 4:55 pm on May 14.
"The IO/prosecution has utterly failed to explain this unexpected delay in lodging the present case FIR, more so when the complainant was himself a police officer," the court said.
Clarifying that it was not conducting a detailed fact-finding exercise at the bail stage, the court said the circumstances emerging from the record could not be ignored.
It granted Rana bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000, with a surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including appearing before the trial court, not tampering with evidence and not contacting or influencing the complainant or witnesses.
