On the Investigation Officer (IO)’s application seeking the accused’s 14-day judicial custody, Metropolitan Magistrate Paras Dalal of Patiala House Courts granted her custody till August 26.
The accused filed the bail application on the ground that there has been no recovery of stolen property and that there is non-compliance of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
The complainant has argued that the accused is habitual of the conduct of picking up bags from outside the courtrooms in the high court of Delhi and apart from the present case is alleged of the similar offence in at least one other FIR and there is also apprehension that she may have been involved in two other such instances.
The complainant has further argued that due to the actions of the accused, there is fear in leaving the bags outside the courtrooms of the high court among lawyers, and has said that there is serious lapse of security since the accused is not an advocate, having no ID card yet she is seen in the compound of the high court premises without any entry pass.
It is argued that the complainant clearly identifies the accused carrying her bag which contained stolen property. However, the accused has claimed that the woman seen in the footage is not her.
The State has countered the bail on the ground that the accused has been non co-operative throughout the investigation. After her identity was established, she was served notice to join the investigation, yet she failed and when the police officials reached her house, she refused to join the investigation and even resisted the police officers in the investigation.
The IO has stated that the accused refused to share her details and as much as failed to provide any identity proof of herself.
“Having considered the seriousness of the allegations, this court deems it appropriate to commit the accused to judicial custody since the apprehension of the IO is true that once released on bail, the accused may abscond and even threatened the witness or indulge in similar offence vide same modus operandi,” the court said.
–IANS
spr/dan
