New Delhi [India], April 30 (ANI): Delhi’s Patiala House Court has recently granted bail to a gangster accused in a case of murder of rival gangster Prince Tewatia in Tihar Jail in April 2023.
While granting bail the court observed that the grounds of arrets were not communicated to the accused or his family members. The court said that it is an infringement of rights of accused which warranted his release on bail in this case.
The court further said, “To put it pithily the constitutional guarantee has been infringed – warranting release of the applicant/releasing back his liberty but at the same time the offence/the consequence of the offence remain as it is for which the accused shall face trial or continue to face trial.”
He was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police in the FIR connected with the murder of Prince Tewatia and was arrested from the Tihar Jail where he was lodged in another case.
Additional Sessions Judge Sumit Dass granted bail to accused Ata Ur Rehman on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 50,000 and a surety bond in the like amount.
“If I look at all those documents, from any of them or including all of them, I am unable to persuade myself that there was due compliance of the communication of the grounds of arrest,” ASJ Dass said in the order.
The court further said, ” Infact what is more appalling which I may say so is that there has been no attempt also to comply with law or otherwise align with the same, not by the Investigating Agency nor by anyone else.
“I also note a very important aspect that infact when the accused was produced before the Court for the purpose of police custody there ought to be a mention as to the communication of the ground of arrest or at least a discussion thereof in the said order,” the court said in the order.
The court said that mere presence of legal counsel does not fulfil the legal obligation of communication of ground of arrest.
“I may note herein that there has been a complete disregard of the principle at the time of effecting the arrest, the grounds of arrest were not at all communicated. The Learned Magistrate had also not taken note of the said aspect. The legal aid counsel presence though was marked however the same also did not in any manner by his presence made this legal obligation meaningful,” the court said. (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
