Delhi Court: In an application by the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) to seek 3 days police custody remand of the accused, who was arrested due to a complaint that he had allegedly posted fake, morphed, and misleading information and photos of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to malign his reputation, Akanksha Garg, J. dismissed the application and held the arrest to be illegal since no proper notice was served under Section of the (‘CrPC’), as the accused was not given sufficient time to join the investigation.
Background
A complaint was filed against the accused that he had allegedly posted fake, morphed, and misleading information and photos with the intention to tarnish the reputation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi which impacted the morale of the women deployed in the Armed/Central Forced as well as friendly relations with other countries.
The IO sought remand by stating that the accused had concealed vital information despite sustained interrogation about the source of the posts and that custodial interrogation of the accused was required to identify the type of posts and social media channels.
The accused argued that he had been arrested due to political vendetta as he was the National Coordinator of social media of the Congress party and that the posts in question pertained to 2022 and 2023 which is why there was no urgency for his custodial interrogation as he had already joined the investigation.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that upon enquiry from the IO regarding the notice under Section 41A of CrPC, it was submitted that the notice was served on 18-06-2024 when the accused had approached the police station for investigation in another case.
Upon perusal of the notice, the Court stated that the notice was a mere formality and was not complied with, in letter and spirit since the IO submitted that the notice was served at 8:30 PM and the accused was required to appear before the IO at 9:30 PM on the same day.
Further, the Court stated that the accused must have been given sufficient time to join the investigation, however, he was arrested by the IO at 10:30 PM. The Court stated that this was not a case where the accused had failed to join the investigation and the offences in question under Sections , , , , and of the (‘IPC’) and Section of the were bailable.
The Court noted that the only non-bailable offence invoked by the IO was Section , , and stated that since the mobile phone of the accused had already been seized and the password had been provided, no further custodial interrogation was warranted.
Thus, the Court dismissed the application and held the arrest of the accused to be illegal since a proper notice under Section 41A of the CrPC had not been served. Further, the Court granted bail to the accused on furnishing personal bonds worth Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount after verification of the addresses of the accused as well as the surety. The Court also subjected the bail to certain conditions to be fulfilled by the accused.
[State v. Arun Kumar Bereddy, FIR No. 243 of 2024, Order dated 19-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Accused — Advocate Kamran Khan, Advocate Omar Huda
For State — APP Bhaskar
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .