The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an individual accused of stealing handkerchiefs from his employer, observing that the recovery of stolen goods is not a “reasonable requirement” for custodial investigation. The Court also criticized the investigating authorities for failing to look into potential underlying issues such as tax evasion or trademark disputes, given that the goods involved bore the celebrated ‘Nokia’ trademark.
The petitioner, Anil Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 401/2024 registered at PS Sadar Bazar under Section 381 of the IPC (theft by clerk or servant). Justice Girish Kathpalia allowed the application, making the interim protection from arrest permanent, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 and joining the investigation.
Background of the Case
The complainant (de facto) alleged that while Anil Kumar was employed at his shop, he stole bundles of handkerchiefs from the godown and sold them to other shopkeepers. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was assisted by other employees, namely Rajeev Kumar, Hemraj, and Rajan.
The case had been pending since July 2024, during which time the petitioner enjoyed interim protection from arrest.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the investigation concerning Anil Kumar was complete and that he had been falsely implicated. It was further pointed out that the co-accused, Rajeev Kumar and Hemraj, continue to work with the complainant and have not been arrested.
The State (Government of NCT of Delhi) opposed the bail, labeling it a “serious offence.” The Investigating Officer (IO) maintained that “custodial investigation” was necessary to recover the stolen handkerchiefs and to apprehend the co-accused, Rajan.
The counsel for the complainant presented photographs allegedly showing the sale of ‘Nokia’ branded handkerchiefs to other shopkeepers, claiming the petitioner had caused significant financial loss over a long period.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Girish Kathpalia raised concerns regarding the direction of the investigation. The Court noted that despite the handkerchiefs being sold under the brand name ‘Nokia’, the investigator had not checked if the case involved a trademark dispute or tax evasion.
The Court emphasized the fundamental purpose of a criminal probe, stating:
“It has been repeatedly pointed out by way of various judicial pronouncements that investigation should be a process to reach the criminal from the crime and not just collecting material to somehow connect the proposed criminal with the crime.”
The Bench was particularly critical of the police’s demand for custodial interrogation solely for the purpose of recovery. The Court observed:
“To say the least, these do not form part of reasonable requirement of custodial investigation. It is not the job of the investigating authorities to recover the stolen handkerchiefs.”
The Decision
Finding no reason to deprive the applicant of his liberty, the Court allowed the application. It directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety. The petitioner is required to join the investigation as and when directed in writing by the IO.
- Case Title: Anil Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 2287/2024
