BAIL APPLN. 2417/2022 $~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2417/2022 GANESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Faiz Imam, Advocate. versus STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State. Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for complainant. W/SI Manish and Insp. Sandeep Kumar, P.S.: Madhu Vihar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 03.02.2025 Pursuant to last order dated 27.01.2025, Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has handed-up a copy of Status Report dated 03.02.2025, which explains the cause of delay in completing investigation and the reason why the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’) requires the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. 2. The status report is taken on record. 3. Briefly, the subject FIR alleges the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the petitioner, who is a police officer with the Bihar Police. The FIR dates back to 06.01.2022; and the petitioner was granted an interim protective order on 01.12.2022 in the present proceedings. 4. In this behalf, Mr. Faiz Imam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits, that the petitioner has presented himself for investigation and has cooperated with the I.O. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/02/2025 at 14:49:15 BAIL APPLN. 2417/2022 5. The above position is however disputed by the I.O. 6. Learned APP explains, that the investigation is stalled because the petitioner is not handing-over a cellphone to the I.O., which is alleged to have been used by him to communicate with the prosecutrix; as well as another cellphone, which is alleged to have been the prosecutrix’s cellphone, which as per the prosecutrix, she had given to the petitioner. Ms. Arya submits that the I.O. would require the WhatsApp chats which are contained in those 02 cellphones. 7. Ms. Arya further submits, that the petitioner is also not returning the sum of Rs. 40,000/- that the prosecutrix had allegedly given to the petitioner. 8. Rebutting the submission made on behalf of the State, Mr. Imam submits, that the petitioner does not have either his own cellphone or the cellphone of the prosecutrix; and that no money is refundable by him to the prosecutrix. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this court, it is not the scope of custodial interrogation to force a confession out of an accused. If, as in the present case, the petitioner is explaining why he cannot produce the cellphones; or is refusing to refund the money, it is for the I.O. to adopt other legitimate means for investigating the WhatsApp chats or other incriminating material that he seeks recover. In any event, the State has not filed any application for vacation of the interim protective order. 10. In the circumstances, this court is persuaded to allow the present petition, thereby directing that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner – Ganesh Kumar s/o Sh. Lal Dev Ram – shall be admitted to bail by This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/02/2025 at 14:49:15 BAIL APPLN. 2417/2022 the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions : 10.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with 02 local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer; 10.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer a cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times; 10.3. If the petitioner has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the Investigating Officer and shall not travel out of the country without prior permission of this court; and 10.4. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial. 11. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending trial. 12. The petition stands disposed-of in the above terms. 13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J FEBRUARY 3, 2025/V.Rawat This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/02/2025 at 14:49:15