Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Mohd Kamran in Alleged Extortion Case
Custodial Interrogation Not Required as Applicant Cooperates with Investigation; Bail Granted With Conditions
In a significant judicial development, the Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Mohd Kamran, who faced allegations of extortion. The decision, delivered by Justice Arun Monga, underscored the cooperative stance of the applicant during the investigation and deemed custodial interrogation unnecessary.
The case, rooted in FIR No. 150/2024, involves allegations against Kamran under Sections 384, 385, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, Mohd Amir, a building contractor, accused Kamran and associates of attempting to extort Rs. 20 lakhs by halting construction activities through legal petitions. Despite these allegations, the court found the applicant's cooperation, including providing voice samples, sufficient to negate the need for custodial interrogation.
Justice Monga critiqued the opposition from the complainant, suggesting it stemmed from personal vendetta rather than legal grounds. The judge highlighted that the evasion during interrogation does not equate to non-cooperation, emphasizing the applicant's legal right to defend himself. Furthermore, the court noted that no further recovery from Kamran was necessary, reinforcing the decision for anticipatory bail.
The judgment also touched on the wider implications of Kamran's involvement in public interest litigations, suggesting any retaliatory actions by the complainant could be pursued separately. The court made it clear that the mere filing of PILs does not warrant legal action unless proven to serve ulterior motives.
Kamran's bail is subject to conditions, including furnishing a personal bond with surety, as outlined under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The decision marks a crucial affirmation of individual rights against unwarranted custodial actions, reinforcing the judicial principle that cooperation in investigations mitigates the need for arrest.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail granted in a case of alleged extortion under Sections 384, 385, 120B, and 34 IPC, as custodial interrogation was not deemed necessary, and the applicant had cooperated with the investigation.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 384, 385, 120B, 34 IPC, Section 438 CrPC, Section 41A CrPC, Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Mohd Kamran v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2781303
