New Delhi, April 1 A Delhi court has sought the intervention of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) after expressing concern over inconsistencies in the police's version regarding the alleged illegal detention of an accused subcontractor in the Janakpuri biker-death case.
The case pertains to the death of Kamal Dhyani, who worked as an assistant manager at the Rohini branch of the HDFC Bank. Dhyani died on the night of February 5 after his motorcycle fell into a 15-foot-deep sewage pit that was allegedly left open during work being carried out by the Delhi Jal Board at Janakpuri.
Judicial Magistrate Harjot Singh Aujla issued a notice to the DCP, directing him to personally look into the matter and ensure that all relevant CCTV footage and official records are placed before the court.
In an order dated March 28, the magistrate said, "This court deems it appropriate to seek intervention at a higher level so that the necessary and relevant material is placed before the court without any further delay."
The court was hearing a bail application filed by accused subcontractor Rajesh Kumar Prajapati in connection with the case registered at the Janakpuri police station.
Prajapati had contended that he was illegally detained by the police on February 6, while the arrest memo showed that he was formally arrested at around 4 pm the next day.
To ascertain the factual position regarding the date and time of the accused's apprehension, the court had earlier directed the investigating officer (IO) to produce relevant CCTV footage from the police station.
However, the IO initially produced footage from the front gate of the police station, despite stating that the accused was brought through the back gate due to the presence of media and members of the public at the front entrance.
The court noted that producing footage from the front gate was inconsistent with the police's own version and reflected a lack of due diligence in complying with the court's directions.
"In a matter where the allegation pertains to illegal detention and the issue directly touches upon the fundamental right to life and personal liberty of the accused, the court is under a duty to ensure that the issue is examined effectively, on merits, and in its true letter and spirit," the magistrate said.
Subsequently, when asked to provide footage from the rear gate, the IO stated that no camera was installed there and later, claimed that a camera installed nearby was not functional.
The court observed that the shifting and contradictory stands taken by the IO did not inspire confidence.
It further noted that despite repeated opportunities, police had failed to place on record any contemporaneous documents, such as daily diary entries, movement records, detention memo or other official records, that could clarify whether the accused was detained prior to the formal arrest.
"Let notice be issued to the DCP (West) with a request to personally look into the matter and ensure that all relevant CCTV footage and/or all necessary corresponding official records/documents reflect the actual date and time of apprehension," the court said.
It then listed the matter for April 4 for further proceedings.