Bail – Delhi Court Refuses Second Bail Plea of Ex-Narcotics Officer in Bribery Case
Bail – A Delhi court has refused to grant regular bail to former Delhi Police officer Subhash Chand, who was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in an alleged bribery case. Chand was serving as the in-charge of the Narcotics Cell in Dwarka at the time of his arrest. The court concluded that the circumstances of the case did not justify his release at this stage despite the completion of the investigation and filing of the chargesheet.
Court Finds Bail Grounds Insufficient
The order was delivered by Special CBI Judge Vijeta Singh Rawat at the Rouse Avenue Court after hearing submissions from both the defence and the prosecution. The defence argued that with the chargesheet already submitted, Chand was no longer required for investigation and should therefore be granted regular bail.
However, the court observed that the filing of a chargesheet alone cannot automatically become a valid reason for granting bail. It stated that the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses remains an important factor while deciding such applications, particularly in cases involving public servants.
Investigation Highlights Missing Evidence
During the hearing, the court took note of findings recorded during the investigation. It pointed out that CCTV footage from the relevant period at the Dwarka Narcotics Cell could not be recovered. The investigating agency also informed the court that the mobile phone allegedly used by the accused had not been traced.
According to the court, these missing pieces of evidence added weight to the prosecution’s concerns and supported the need for continued judicial custody while the trial process moves forward.
Concerns Over Influence on Witnesses
The court further observed that Chand, despite being under suspension, continues to hold a position that may carry influence. Since several witnesses connected with the case are reportedly his colleagues or junior officers, the court accepted the prosecution’s argument that there was a genuine possibility of witness intimidation or interference.
The judge clarified that keeping the accused in custody under such circumstances should not be viewed as punishment but as a measure necessary to ensure a fair judicial process. On these grounds, the court rejected Chand’s second application seeking regular bail.
Defence Challenges Prosecution’s Allegations
Representing the accused, defence counsel maintained that Chand had been falsely implicated in the matter. It was argued that the allegations were based largely on assumptions arising from his supervisory role over the co-accused and that there was no direct evidence establishing his involvement in any criminal conspiracy.
The defence also contended that the prosecution’s own chargesheet contained inconsistencies that weakened its case. Another significant argument raised was that no alleged bribe money had been recovered from Chand’s personal possession, custody, or during his search, which, according to the defence, undermined the prosecution’s claims.
CBI Opposes Release
Appearing for the CBI, Public Prosecutor Vikas Khatri opposed the bail request and reminded the court of its earlier observations while rejecting previous bail applications filed by Chand and co-accused Ajay Kumar. He argued that the seriousness of the allegations remained unchanged and that the filing of the chargesheet did not amount to a substantial change in circumstances.
The prosecution also referred to an earlier order passed on July 1, in which the court had observed that submission of the chargesheet by itself could not entitle an accused to bail. Accepting these submissions, the court held that sufficient grounds existed to continue Chand’s detention while the criminal proceedings continue.