In a significant ruling, a Delhi court has granted bail to a man after uncovering serious inaccuracies in police records that wrongly implicated him in numerous first information reports (FIRs). This decision was announced on Tuesday in the case titled State v. Ajay Rathi, highlighting discrepancies in the Delhi Police’s documentation.
Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri, presiding over the Saket courts, discovered that Ajay Rathi, the accused, was incorrectly listed as involved in 17 e-FIRs. The court noted that these records, dating back to 2017, did not merit Rathi’s involvement as there were no arrests or charge sheets filed against him in those cases.
Initially, police records suggested Rathi was involved in 36 cases. However, upon verification, it became apparent that his actual involvement was limited to five cases, including the current FIR. Judge Agnihotri stated, “From the involvement record of the accused as filed by the Investigating Officer (IO), it is clear that false involvement of the accused has been shown in at least 17 E-FIRs lodged in the year 2017 in PS Mehrauli in the SCRB record maintained by Delhi Police.”
The case at hand originated from an FIR registered at Maidan Garhi police station, stemming from a family dispute involving Rathi and his mother, who is the complainant. Rathi’s legal team argued that the FIR was an attempt to prevent him from claiming any rights over his mother’s property, alleging that the theft charges were baseless.
Rathi’s counsel further contended that the incorrect involvement records might have been influenced by a personal dispute between Rathi and an Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP). Despite opposition from the prosecution, which presented CCTV evidence of Rathi entering the complainant’s house, the court found the defense’s claims regarding the police records credible.
The court’s investigation revealed that the initial claim of Rathi’s involvement in 36 cases was overstated. A subsequent verified report confirmed his involvement in only five cases, with three already resolved. Judge Agnihotri emphasized that the “updated involvement report showed that Rathi was involved in only five cases, three of which had already been closed.”
Additionally, the court noted that some co-accused in the same FIR had been granted bail based on corroborative evidence, such as hotel records and CCTV footage proving their absence from the crime scene.
Considering these findings, the court granted regular bail to Rathi. The decision was represented legally by Additional Public Prosecutor Pravin Rahul for the State and Advocates Mayank Sharma and Vishal Yadav for Rathi.
