The Delhi High Court today refused to give interim protection against arrest to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Jarnail Singh.
The Delhi High Court today refused to give interim protection against arrest to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Jarnail Singh, who was accused of assaulting an MCD engineer and preventing him from demolishing an illegal construction in west Delhi.
A bench of Justice Sunita Gupta while refusing to pass an interim order, issued notice to the Delhi police asking them to file status report on the incident as well as on Singh’s plea seeking anticipatory bail.
“Issue notice. Let the police file its status report by tomorrow,” the court said, adding, “let me have the status report first, then will decide the application”.
Singh, AAP’s Tilak Nagar MLA, moved the high court after the trial court on May 2 had declined him anticipatory bail.
Singh, who is facing arrest after his anticipatory bail was rejected by the trial court, has been booked by the police for allegedly assaulting a South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) junior engineer, Athar Mustaffa, and preventing him from carrying out his duty when the latter and his team had gone to demolish an illegal construction in west Delhi area on April 28.
An FIR was lodged after police received a complaint from engineer.
Senior advocate H S Phoolka, appearing for Singh, sought relief, saying his client has been falsely implicated in the case at the behest of his political rivals and this was not a case where custodial interrogation was necessary.
In a related development, Delhi Police Commissioner B S Bassi told media that Singh was absconding and hoped that the MLA would surrender soon.
During the brief arguments, Phoolka said the trial court judge had rejected Singh’s plea as he was not represented properly due to a lawyers’ strike.
“The trial court had not given any reason for rejection of the anticipatory bail application of Singh,” Phoolka said, adding that the facts in the FIR were not correct.
MLA’s counsel submitted that on the date of incident, the petitioner had reached the place and was trying to resolve the matter by listening to the grievances of the residents.
“He (Singh) on reaching the spot had asked Mustaffa for the official papers concerning demolition of the premises and when the same was not shown to him, he had called the police to report the same.
“The two complaints given against complainant (Mustaffa) were duly received in the police station,” the application said, adding that an FIR was registered in the presence of Singh at the police station on the day of incident.
“…Singh was in the police station Tilak Nagar from 4 pm to 10:30 pm on the day of incident and he was neither detained nor arrested, which shows that FIR is anti-time and was a result of consultation, deliberations and confabulations at the behest of the complainant,” the counsel said.
To which the court asked for documents in support of the contentions made by the counsel for Singh.
“Nothing has been placed on record in this regard,” the court said.
Singh’s counsel said the petitioner was ready to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the SHO or the Investigating Officer.
“There is no apprehension of the petitioner absconding or tampering with the evidence if he was granted the relief,” Phoolka said.
Mustaffa, however, had claimed in the FIR that when Singh was shown documents authorising the demolition, he tore them up.
On the basis of Mustaffa’s complaint, police has slapped section 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of duty), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC on Singh.
Singh’s counsel on the other hand rejected the claims made by Mustaffa and told the court that no notice was served to the owner of the property.