Red Fort violence case: Deep Sidhu gets bail, court terms police action ‘vicious & sinister’

NEW DELHI: A city court on Monday termed as “highly questionable” the arrest of actor-activist Deep Sidhu in a case linked to the January 26 Red Fort violence after he was granted bail in a similar case. It added that “vicious and sinister action” by the police amounted to playing fraud with the established criminal process.
Granting him bail, the court noted that before Sidhu could be released from prison after being granted bail in a similar case, the police arrested him in a different case, which was also related to the Red Fort violence.
“The sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognisable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report,” said the order of metropolitan magistrate Sahil Gupta.
Sidhu was arrested in connection with FIR 96/2021 on February 9, 2021. The police were granted his custody for 14 days following which he was sent to judicial remand on February 23. A sessions court granted him bail in the case on April 16, but he was again arrested in connection with FIR 98/2021 on April 17.
The court opined: “The need and timing of the arrest is highly questionable because despite knowing that the accused has been lodged in judicial custody since February 9, 2021, he was arrested only on April 17, 2021, when he was granted regular bail in FIR number 96/2021 (on April 16).”
The police act “clearly” indicated that it was an attempt to defeat the bail order dated April 16 of the additional sessions court besides being a “grave affront to personal liberty” of the accused, running afoul of the rights guaranteed under Article 21, it said.
The order further observed: “Such vicious and sinister action of investigative authorities amounts to playing fraud with established criminal process and shows scant regard to constitutional protections enshrined, protected and cherished under the Constitution of India.” Deep Sidhu’s lawyer had stressed that the allegations in both the FIRs against him were identical, submitting that the subsequent FIR was an abuse of the process of law.
The court held: “Fresh investigation based on the second and successive FIRs, not being a counter case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or final report under section 173(2) (of Code of Criminal Procedure) has been forwarded to the magistrate, is an abuse or process and impermissible (sic).”
The additional public prosecutor for Delhi Police opposed the bail plea on the ground that though the timing of the arrest in the present FIR might be questionable, no plea was made out for quashing it if both the FIRs were identical.
He submitted that the other FIR, 98/2021, was registered on a different cause of action and Sidhu had different roles attributed to him in the two FIRs.
The court, however, argued that the discretion of the accused, whether or not to invoke high court’s jurisdiction for quashing an FIR, nowhere precluded him seeking bail. “...applicant’s further incarceration in the present case would bear no fruit and, therefore, would be unjustified, nor would the restoration of the applicant’s liberty be detrimental to the investigation being conducted by the police authorities,” it said.