Delhi court seeks explanation for non-updation of SCRB data, asks police commissioner to fix responsibility

New Delhi [India], January 22 : A Delhi Court on Saturday sought an explanation from the Commissioner of Police (CP) and asked why the data of the State Crime Record Bureau (SCRB) was not updated despite clear direction passed by the same court one-and-a-half years ago.
The court has asked the police commissioner to fix the responsibility of erring officials. The court also remarked that the higher hierarchy has failed to instil discipline in the Delhi police.
Saket District Court passed the order while dismissing anticipatory bail of an accused in a case of theft of Sarees worth lakhs of rupees.
Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri passed the order and said, " Let explanation be sought from CP, Delhi as to why SCRB record is not being updated till date despite the direction of this court way back about one and half years ago in FIR No. 16/2018, PS Govind Puri."
With a direction to fix the responsibility of concerned officials for failure to comply with the same, the matter has been listed for January 31, 2023.
The court also raised serious questions on the conduct of the Investigation Officer (IO) of the present case.
The court remarked, "From the conduct of IO, it appears that he is not carrying out investigation in a proper manner and there is something more written on the wall than visible."
The court also issued a show cause notice to SHO PS Defence Colony and IO HC Raj Kumar through DCP, South for furnishing false information to the court.
The matter is listed for January 31.
The court has directed to send a copy of the order to DCP, South to inquire about the role of IO as well as SHO PS Defence Colony in the investigation of the present case in view of observations of this court as have come in this order with a direction to file Action Taken Report (ATR) against the erring officials and file report in this regard before this court on January 31, 2023.
The court said, " It is notable that once, punishment of censure has already been awarded to defaulting SHOs and advisory has been issued to all defaulting ACPs as per explanation earlier called from CP, Delhi and reports furnished by DCP, South and DCP, South-East on behalf of CP, Delhi in another matter but still, there is no improvement which practically shows that even higher hierarchy in the police has failed to instil discipline in Delhi Police.
"Let a copy of the order be sent to CP, Delhi for information and compliance," the court said. "Let a copy of the order be sent to SHO PS Defence Colony for reference and compliance," the court added.
The court noted a perusal of the previous involvement report of the accused filed along with a reply to the present anticipatory bail application of the accused shows that despite so many orders passed by this court, the updated status of cases pending against the accused has not been mentioned in the same and as many as in 7 cases, the status of accused has been left blank.
"In 7 cases, the accused has been shown to be in judicial custody wherein the majority of cases pertaining to the year 2015, one case pertains to the year 2012 and one case pertains to the year 2020 which seems quite improbable as the accused is seeking anticipatory bail and during the course of arguments, counsel for accused submitted that accused at present is not in JC," the court further noted.
Reply to the anticipatory bail application of the accused is forwarded by SHO PS Defence Colony, the court said.
The court passed the direction while dismissing the anticipatory bail of Vikas Gulati alias Vicky, accused in a case of theft registered at the police station Defence Colony.
The court observed, "In case, the accused is a Bad Character (BC) of the area and is involved in a number of cases as per his involvement list filed with a reply to the anticipatory bail application of the accused, he is not joining the investigation despite service of notice, his wife disclosed false address to police to mislead the investigation, he is the person who disposes of stolen property, address mentioned by accused in bail application is different from the one disclosed to the police and as per interrogation report of co-accused Raj Bala available in a police file, it was accused who took accused persons to a showroom of a complainant in a car and even the last numbers of car, make and colour of the car has been stated by co-accused Raj Bala in her interrogation report, custody of accused may be required to recover the said car used in the commission of the offence in question."
The court also noted the submission made by Additional PP for the State that custody of the accused is required for purpose of recovery of stolen Sarees.
"I am of the view that application of accused does not deserve to be allowed and is accordingly dismissed," the court said.
However, the court showed its displeasure and said that the Perusal of the police file shows that after the case diary of December 23, 2022, the next day on which the case diary was written by IO is of date January 4, 2023.
The court observed, "IO has not written any case diary for date 02.01.2023 on which date, anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala were dismissed."
"IO has written in the case diary of 04.01.2023 that notices were issued to co-accused them and all this was apprised to SHO PS Defence Colony."
The court noted that Anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala have been dismissed by this court vide orders dated January 02, 2023.
In their anticipatory bail applications orders, it was pleaded by State that the rest of the stolen Sarees are in their possession, and that custody of the accused was submitted to be required for recovery of stolen sarees. IO HC Raj Kumar was present before the court during the hearing.
The court remarked, "It is surprising that despite opposing anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala and submitting before the court that their custody is required for recovery of stolen sarees, IO instead of arresting, made them join the investigation after serving notices U/sec 41A Cr. P. C."
The court observed, "There was no need to oppose anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala, in case their custody was not required by IO. The police have opposed anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala before the court but made them join the investigation by serving notice, it appears that there is something fishy on part of the police."
The court also noted that while opposing the anticipatory bail the IO has submitted orally that custody of the accused (Vikas) is not required in case he joins the investigation but in reply to the anticipatory bail application of the accused, it is mentioned by IO that the accused /applicant happens to be the husband of the main accused Laxmi who is in custody in the present case and it is he who disposes of stolen property.