Ravi Kumar @ Shooter Vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J

1. The applicant, who is accused in case FIR No. 556/2016 dated 19.09.2016 registered under sections 324/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S.:

Ambedkar Nagar, to which sections 302/307 IPC and sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 were subsequently added, seeks regular bail.

2. Notice in this application was issued on 02.09.2020; whereupon status report dated 03.10.2020 has been filed. Nominal roll dated 03.10.2020 has

also been received from the Jail Superintendent.

3. The applicant has also filed additional documents under cover of Index dated 15.12.2020 thereby bringing on record the MLC, death summary, post-

mortem report and the statements of PW-1/Suraj and PW-2/Vishal recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. alongwith certain other documents in support

of his bail application.

Discrepancies in SCRB Reports :

4. Alongwith the bail application, the applicant had filed a copy of previous conviction/involvement report dated 09.07.2020, which is stated to be from

the State Crime Records Bureau’s (SCRB) records, Delhi which discloses the applicant’s involvement in only 01 criminal case, namely the

present FIR bearing No. 556/2016. In the bail application it is stated that SCRB report dated 09.07.2020 is the one filed by the Investigating Officer

alongwith his reply to the bail application filed before the learned Sessions Court, which was subsequently dismissed vidé order dated 10.07.2020.

5. Alongwith status report dated 03.10.2020, the State has placed on record previous conviction/involvement report dated 03.10.2020 in respect of the

applicant, which is also from the records of the SCRB, Delhi; which however discloses that the applicant was involved in a total of 03 criminal cases

bearing FIR No. 556/2016 under sections 324/307/302/34 IPC (being the FIR in present case) as also in two other cases bearing FIR No. 342/2013

under section 326 IPC and FIR No. 195/2014 under sections 307/34 IPC, in both of which (latter), as per a handwritten notation in SCRB report dated

03.10.2020, the applicant has been acquitted.

6. Accordingly, this court found on its record two different versions of the SCRB record, one dated 09.07.2020 showing the applicant’s

involvement in only 01 criminal case; and another dated 03.10.2020 showing the applicant’s involvement in 03 criminal cases. As stated above, it

was further noticed that in SCRB report dated 03.10.2020, in the column for ‘Status (Period/Fine Amount)’ against the 02 other FIRs, the

words “Acquitted on 06.06.2018†and “Acquitted on 14.09.2015†were noted in handwriting, though the rest of the report was a print-out

taken from the SCRB database.

7. Noticing this inter se discrepancy as between the SCRB reports dated 09.07.2020 and 03.10.2020, this court directed the Director, SCRB to furnish

a written explanation as regards the said discrepancy; which explanation was furnished vidé reply/explanation dated 02.11.2020 under signatures of

Shri Rajan Bhagat, DCP, Crime (CRO) Delhi.

8. On 27.11.2020, Inspector Shivaji Chauhan, who is stated to be heading the maintenance of the SCRB database in Delhi joined the video-conference

hearing and explained that the discrepancies in the 02 reports, both from the SCRB database, arise from the fact that an SCRB report can be

generated by an Investigating Officer from the SCRB web-portal/database by keying-in certain search parameters; and if the search parameters

keyed-in are different or incomplete, it leads to generating discrepant or inaccurate SCRB reports. In the course of hearing on 27.11.2020 Inspector

Chauhan further explained that there are 04 parameters or search criteria using which the SCRB database can be searched, which are : the

person’s name, father’s name, address and alias.

9. It is pointed-out that in SCRB report dated 09.07.2020 the ‘Search Parameters Entered by User’ were %Ravi%, Ishwar and Dakshin, being

the name, father’s name and the first word of the colony Dakshin Puri where the applicant is stated to reside:

10. On the other hand, the ‘Search Parameters Entered by User’ in SCRB report dated 03.10.2020 were only ravi and DAKSHIN:

11. And then, yet another copy of the applicant’s SCRB report dated 22.10.2020 has come to be filed along with reply/explanation dated

02.11.2020 by the SCRB itself, which also shows 03 criminal involvements as under:

Â

12. It is noticed that in this last SCRB report dated 22.10.2020, the ‘Search Parameters Entered by User’ are : “RAVI†“ISHWAR

DUTTâ€​ and “DAKSHINPURIâ€​ with the wildcard sign (%) interspersed within the words to include within those words their alternate spellings.

13. What is noticed from the foregoing three SCRB reports is that report dated 03.10.2020 where the applicant’s father’s name was not even

included in the search parameters gave a more detailed result showing all 03 cases in which the applicant was implicated; whereas SCRB report dated

09.07.2020 which was based upon all three search parameters showed only 01 such case. It is also noticed that SCRB report dated 22.10.2020,

produced by the SCRB itself, which used the wildcard sign (%) at all points of the search parameters for a comprehensive search, threw-up the 03

cases in which the applicant was implicated. What is also significant is that in all the three SCRB reports, the updated status of the cases against the

applicant, in two of which he was acquitted as far back in 2015 and 2018, are not disclosed.

14. It requires no emphasis that an accurate and credible SCRB report is of vital significance to proceedings before any criminal court. SCRB reports

presented before a court, whether in the course of bail proceedings or trial or in any other matter, are taken to be authentic, credible and are presumed

to reflect the upto-date position of all criminal involvements of any accused/convict. The court ordinarily considers such reports as sacred. If

therefore, as in the present case, it is found that reports generated from the SCRB database are even inter se discrepant, it shakes the confidence of

the court and leaves it wondering if it can rely blindly on the SCRB reports produced before it.

15. This is certainly not a desirable state of affairs.

16. It was in this backdrop that the issue of credibility of SCRB reports produced before the court was taken-up by this court in the present bail

proceedings.

17. To further explain the aforesaid discrepancies, in compliance of order dated 08.12.2020, the SCRB has filed a supplementary status report dated

16.12.2020 giving details of the existing system of maintaining records of accused/convicts at police stations, at the SCRB as also on the Crime and

Criminal Tracking Network System platform. Mr. Rajan Bhagat, DCP, has taken the court through his status report and the annexures filed therewith,

explaining how crime records are maintained. The submissions made by Mr. Bhagat may be summarised as follows:

a) In the first instance, records of criminal involvement are maintained in the Village Crime Register/Note Book, which is Register No. IX (Register

No. 9) kept at every police station as per the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 (cf. Rule 22.59). The court is informed that these records are

maintained at the police station where an FIR is registered against an accused as also in the police station where the accused has his permanent and

present place of residence;

b) In addition, Investigating Officers also prepare dossiers of persons implicated in certain categories of offences, which are now also maintained on-

line;

c) There is also the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (CCTNS) which is part of and is accessed through the Core Application Software

(CAS) Database, which is operated by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)/SCRB, in which records obtained from the prosecution branch

are available, including as per the provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act 1920;

d) And there is the Criminal Attributes Database (CADB) which contains fingerprint records cross-referenced and linked with other particulars,

including name, parentage and address of persons involved in crimes, which is maintained by the Central Finger Print Bureau(CPFB). This court is

further advised that since any text based search cannot trace criminal involvement of the same person arrested with different names/identities, the

solution to this problem is the digitised finger printing system, which is available through the Criminal Remote Identification System (CRIS) and the

Automated Fingerprint and Palm-print Identification System (AFPIS), which provide biometric identification of persons; and it is submitted that every

police station has been provided with a single digit scanner to effect a query against the fingerprints database;

e) There is also the Crime Criminal Information System (CCIS) in which crime records were maintained earlier; but updation of which database has

now been discontinued in a phased manner. This database however still contains old records and may therefore be accessed to obtain archival records

relating to persons.

18. Mr. Bhagat submits that a thorough search of criminal involvement is available from the conviction.delhipolice.gov.in web-portal, which gives to an

Investigating Officer access to the above 05 databases. Mr. Bhagat has taken the court through the steps that should be taken by an Investigating

Officer while accessing the aforesaid web-portal to generate a comprehensive record in respect of an accused/convict drawing from the foregoing

databases, based upon the name, alias, parentage and address of a person.

19. Mr. Bhagat submits however that since there are inadequacies in the system, a project is also underway to maintain a complete, comprehensive

and updated status of every case pending against a person in court (including status of bail, conviction, acquittal or discharge), through what is called

the Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) project, which is being developed for Delhi by the National Informatics Centre (NIC) under the

aegis and supervision of the E-Committee of the Delhi High Court. The purpose of the ICJS is to collate comprehensive and updated information in

relation to a person from all concerned wings of the justice system, namely the police, prosecution branch, prisons as well as the courts, all available on

a common web platform, which system is at the final stages of testing, completion and deployment.

20. Mr. Bhagat submits that the ICJS platform is already functional except that the process of integrating and updating the CCTNS with the data from

the Court Information System (CIS), which (latter) contains the updated status of court proceedings inter alia in respect of criminal matters, is still

underway to make the ICJS platform complete, comprehensive and updated.

21. Mr. Bhagat further points-out that pursuant to certain observations made by this court in BAIL APPL. 1057/2020 titled Kunwar Manoj Bhatia @

Bunty vs. State of NCT of Delhi, directions have already been issued by the Special Commissioner of Police vidé communication dated 17.07.2020

to all Investigating Officers to follow a certain procedure to update the involvement sheet of accused/convicts before filing it in judicial proceedings, in

the following terms:

“It is hereby ordered that henceforth, the Investigation officers shall follow the following procedure to update involvement sheet of

criminals before using especially for filing it before Hon’ble Courts in Judicial Proceedings:

a. Check/verify involvement/status from ICJS i.e. http://icjs.gov.in.

(Credentials created and staff trained in all PSs).

b. Check/verify information from concerned Police Station records, if not traced above.

DCsP of the districts/units as well as other supervisory officer shall ensure that all the Investigation Officers shall submit Involvement Sheet

with latest update of status column against each criminal involvement. They may also be advice to update the status in the source application

i.e. CCTNS, CCIS, Dossier, etc. for future reference.â€​

22. Mr. Bhagat submits that the ICJS will afford single-platform availability of all updated information in relation to an accused/ convict, drawing from

all databases as explained above; but in the meantime, the result of the search conducted by an Investigating Officer and the efficient use of the

existing systems is completely dependent on the calibre and intelligence of the Investigating Officer and the result depends on the search

parameters/text entered.

23. Despite the foregoing communication from the Special Commissioner however, it is seen that the SCRB reports filed in this matter are far from

accurate or complete.

Directions for preparation of SCRB Reports :

24. On the basis of the submissions made as aforesaid, and while the ICJS system gets fully operational and police officers are trained in its efficient

use, in order to ensure completeness, accuracy and credibility of SCRB reports furnished to any court in any proceedings, it is directed that the

following steps must be taken by an Investigating Officer or other police official before an SCRB report is presented to any court :

i) When searching the criminal involvement/record of any person, the concerned police officer shall accurately enter the full name of the person, the

parentage, the alias as also the full address as per an official identification document, such as Driver’s Licence, Passport, PAN Card, Aadhaar

Card; or, if no such document is available, then as disclosed by the person, ensuring that the wildcard sign (%) is appropriately used in the search to

account for commonly used alternate spellings of any of these particulars;

ii) The particulars so entered shall be searched against each of the following databases : (i) Crime Criminal Information System (CCIS) database; (ii)

On-line Criminal Dossier database maintained by the police; (iii) Criminal Attributes Database (CADB); (iv) CCTNS Database/Core Application

Software (CAS) Database; (v) Register No.IX (Register No. 9) maintained at police stations; and (vi) Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS)

database;

iii) If any element of information in relation to a person or in relation to a particular FIR is not complete, say the status of a bail application or current

stage of a pending trial, the Investigating Officer shall obtain such updated status from the concerned police station, prison or court; and file an

additional information sheet separately signed by him indicating such updated status, without making any interpolations in the SCRB report generated

from the aforesaid databases;

iv) Before an SCRB report is filed in any court, the SHO of the concerned police station shall counter-sign the SCRB report and the additional

information sheet, if any, confirming that the procedures set-out above have been followed by the Investigating Officer in preparing such report; and

v) The foregoing procedures shall be incorporated as part of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to be followed by all Investigating Officers in

all cases and circulated by the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi to all police stations within the NCT of Delhi.

Applicant’s Bail Plea :

25. Insofar as the bail plea is concerned, Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there are 03 accused

persons in the matter, by name Raman, Aman @ Kala and Ravi Kumar i.e. the present applicant, who are accused of allegedly having murdered a

person also called Aman (deceased), which led to the registration of FIR under sections 324/307/302/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act. Although,

counsel contends, that the applicant is alleged to have stabbed the deceased on the thigh on 18.09.2016, the record will show that the deceased

remained admitted at the AIIMS Trauma Centre for some seven days; whereupon, he is alleged to have died on 24.09.2016 due to cardio-pulmonary

arrest.

26. Mr. Mendiratta points-out that, as recorded in the status report, the alleged weapon of offence i.e. a blood stained button-operated knife is stated

to have been recovered from the house of co-accused Raman and not from the applicant. Mr. Mendiratta further points-out that in their deposition

before the trial court on 23.10.2018, the prosecution’s prime witnesses namely PW-1/Suraj, who is the father of the deceased as well as PW-

2/Vishal, who is stated to be the complainant and eye witness have both turned hostile.

27. That apart, counsel submits that both co-accused, Raman as well as Aman @ Kala have been admitted to regular bail vidé orders dated

05.12.2018 and 23.03.2019 respectively, whereas the applicant is languishing in jail.

28. Mr. Mendiratta also draws attention to the contents of the MLC, which shows that the deceased was brought to the Jai Prakash Narayan Apex

Trauma Centre (JPNATC) AIIMS by one Atul; that he was unconscious at that time; and could not therefore have told Atul anything. It is pointed-

out that the MLC records that when he brought the deceased to the hospital, Atul only narrated the alleged history as :

“ASSAULT STAB INJURY AT DAKSHINPURI DELHI AT 8:00 P.M. AT NIGHT BY UNKNOWN PERSON AND BROUGHT TO

JPNATC AIIMS ED BY RELATIVES.â€, and did not name the present applicant at that time. It is also pointed-out that the attending doctor

recorded that the deceased was not fit for statement. Mr. Mendiratta accordingly prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail.

29. On the other hand, Ms. Neelam Sharma, learned APP for the State opposes grant of bail referring to the status report filed; and submits that the

two co-accused persons who are presently on bail, are alleged to have only caught hold of the deceased, whereas it is the applicant who is alleged to

have actually stabbed the deceased on the thigh leading to rupture of the femoral vessel, which eventually led to his death. It is accordingly argued that

the applicant had the primary role in causing the death.

30. It is further argued on behalf of the State that in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., both PW-1 and PW-2 had very clearly

enunciated the applicant’s role in the offence but have turned hostile during trial, which raises serious suspicion inter alia upon the applicant. In any

case, Ms. Sharma submits, that the issue of hostility of the said two witnesses remains to be dealt-with by the trial court. It is further submitted that

another prime witness PW-4/Atul, who is the last crucial public witness, is yet to be examined and his deposition is scheduled on 09.03.2021. Ms.

Sharma states that since, according to her, even the father of the deceased has been ‘won-over’ by the accused persons, the prosecution is

apprehensive that Atul may also come under threat from the accused persons and would also not stand his ground in the course of deposition before

the trial court.

31. Most importantly, it is submitted, that as disclosed in SCRB record dated 03.10.2020 filed alongwith the status report, the applicant has been

involved in 02 other offences namely FIR No. 342/2013 under section 326 IPC and FIR No.195/2014 under sections 307/34 IPC; and even though he

is said to have been acquitted in the said 02 cases, it shows that he is a repeat offender. Attention is also drawn to nominal roll dated 03.10.2020,

which shows that the applicant’s overall jail conduct has been ‘unsatisfactory’ since he was awarded a punishment for demanding money

and threatening other inmates on 18.07.2018.

32. Insofar as the deposition of Atul is concerned, Mr. Mendiratta submits that though his deposition is yet to be recorded and is scheduled for

09.03.2021, due to the truncated functioning of courts by reason of the prevailing coronavirus pandemic, it is unlikely that evidence would be recorded

even on that date. Counsel stresses that though Atul said that, while in hospital, the deceased had told him inter alia that the applicant had knifed him

with the intention to kill, that statement is ex facie unbelievable since the record shows that the applicant was unconscious throughout and there is

nothing to show that he ever regained consciousness. In the circumstances, Mr. Mendiratta contends that the deposition to be made by Atul would

also not change the position of the evidence on record, which is entirely in the applicant’s favour.

33. In the circumstances, Mr. Mendiratta as well as Ms. Sharma submit that a possible course of action could be for this court to advance the date of

hearing before the trial court for recording Atul’s deposition, with a specific direction that such deposition be recorded in a time-bound manner and

through physical hearing, to obviate any apprehension that the said witness would be exposed to any threat by the accused persons.

34. It is further submitted that the present bail application may be kept pending till completion of Atul’s deposition.

35. In view of this submission made jointly on behalf of the applicant and the State, insofar as the bail plea is concerned, the next date of hearing

before the learned trial court is advanced from 09.03.2021 to 04.01.2021, with a specific direction to the learned trial court to hold a physical hearing in

the matter and to ensure, subject to any unforeseen eventualities, that the deposition of witness Atul son of Surender Kumar is commenced on

04.01.2021 and his cross-examination is completed and the witness discharged before the next date of hearing in this court.

36. The directions issued in relation to the preparation of SCRB reports for filing in court be complied with expeditiously; and an action taken report to

that effect be filed before the next date before this court.

37. The bail application is kept pending until completion of the deposition of prosecution witness Atul.

38. A copy of this order be sent to the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi for compliance.

39. It is made clear that the directions contained in the present order are restricted to the preparation of SCRB reports that are filed before courts in

Delhi; and are not in any way intended to impact the on-going ICJS project in Delhi under the aegis and supervision of the E-Committee of the Delhi

High Court.

40. List for further consideration on 13th January 2021.

41. Matter be treated as part-heard.