The Supreme Court, while hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by a man accused in a murder case on Tuesday, observed that FIR is not an exhaustive document. If it does not indicate who the conspirators are, it does not mean the FIR is faulty.
A bench comprising Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant was hearing the matter filed by Nikhil Nagar, seeking anticipatory bail in FIR registered under Sections 302/120B/201/34 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi.
The Counsel of the petitioner submitted that Nikhil is falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that a perusal of the FIR would show the name of the present applicant was not taken by the complainant, who is also the eyewitness, in his statement on the basis of which the present FIR was registered.
“FIR is not an exhaustive document and it may contain the names of the accused, the place and time of the occurrence of crime, but shall not necessarily also contain the name of the conspirators, that is the subject of the investigation, which happens at a later stage,” the bench retorted.
The present plea was filed against the Delhi High Court order, which had dismissed the pre-arrest bail application of the convict, while noting that as per the status report, the role of the applicant has been described as the main conspirator.
The High Court noted, “Immediately after the incident, the complainant gave a call to Ravi, the brother of the deceased, who along with his friend Ankush, reached the spot and took the injured to the hospital, where the injured succumbed to his injuries. It is also stated that the present applicant is also involved in another FIR registered under Sections 419/384/34 IPC at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court starts contempt proceedings against lawyer for calling judges goondas
“The statements of Ravi and Ankush recorded under Section 161 CrPC have been placed on the record. Both of them stated that while on way to hospital, the deceased had told them that the accused have caused the injuries at the asking of the present applicant, as there was previous enmity on account of the girlfriend of Deepak. As per the Status Report, it is also mentioned that the applicant had called the accused Deepak @ Gaurav about 40 times from March 1, 2021 to May 21, 2021 and as per the CDR details, the location of the present applicant was also found near the place of occurrence at the time of the offence,” it added.