{"id":16717,"date":"2011-05-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011"},"modified":"2018-10-18T12:33:17","modified_gmt":"2018-10-18T07:03:17","slug":"commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: . M Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave<\/div>\n
                                                                      REPORTABLE\n\n\n                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                   CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4213 OF 2011\n\n              [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13331 of 2010]\n\n\n\n\nCommissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.                      .... Appellants\n\n\n\n\n                                    Versus\n\n\n\n\nJai Bhagwan                                                 ....Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.\n<\/p>\n
1. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated <\/p>\n
  20.01.2010   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   in   Civil   Writ <\/p>\n
  Petition   No.   3591   of   2001,   whereby   the   High   Court   allowed <\/p>\n
  the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein and set aside <\/p>\n
  the   order   dated   15.01.2001   passed   by   the   Central <\/p>\n
  Administrative Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
3. The facts leading to the filing of the present case are that the <\/p>\n
  respondent herein, at the relevant point of time, was working <\/p>\n
  as   a   Constable   in   Delhi   Police   and   was   posted   at   the   IGI <\/p>\n
  airport,  New Delhi  at the X-Ray  Machine  Belt. An allegation <\/p>\n
  was   made   by   one   Mrs.   Ranjana   Kapoor   that   while   being   so <\/p>\n
  posted   there   the   respondent   extorted   Rs.   100\/-   by   way   of <\/p>\n
  illegal   gratification   from   her   during   the   course   of   security <\/p>\n
  check  of  passengers.     It  is  alleged  that  Mrs.  Kapoor made  a <\/p>\n
  complaint   to   one   S.P.   Narang,   Operations   Officer   of   Air <\/p>\n
  France   who   took   the   complainant   to   O.P.   Yadav,   Inspector, <\/p>\n
  Delhi   Police   on   duty   at   the   Delhi   Airport.   It   is   also   alleged <\/p>\n
  that   the   complainant   identified   the   respondent,   who <\/p>\n
  thereupon   returned   the   aforesaid   sum   of   Rs.   100\/-   to   the <\/p>\n
  complainant   in   the   presence   of   O.P.   Yadav,   Inspector,   and <\/p>\n
  Arjun   Singh,   Sub-Inspector,   who   were   also   present   at   that <\/p>\n
  time.\n<\/p>\n
                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
4. In   view   of   the   aforesaid   allegations   made   against   the <\/p>\n
   respondent,   a   departmental   enquiry   was   initiated   against <\/p>\n
   him   and   a   chargesheet   was   drawn   up   with   a   charge   to   the <\/p>\n
   following effect: –\n<\/p>\n
      “Charge:\n<\/p>\n
      You,   Ct.   Jai   Bhagwan   No.   770\/A   are   hereby   charged   that  <\/p>\n
      on the night intervening 6\/7.3.95 while performing duty on  <\/p>\n
      Belt   at   X-Ray   machine   at   gate   No.   7,   8   and   9   in   Shift   A.\n<\/p>\n
      NITC had extorted Rs. 100\/- as an illegal gratification from  <\/p>\n
      Mrs. Ranjana Kapoor during the course of Security Check of  <\/p>\n
      passengers   of   flight  No.   AF-177.   She   made   a   complaint   of  <\/p>\n
      this   incident   to   Shri   P.S.   Narang   Operations   Officer   of   Air  <\/p>\n
      France,   who   introduced   her   to   Shri   O.P.   Yadav   Inspr.   She  <\/p>\n
      handed   over   a   complaint   to   the   Inspector   and   identified  <\/p>\n
      you, Ct.  Jai  Bhagwan  No. 770\/A as  you had accepted  Rs.\n<\/p>\n
      100\/- from her which was later on returned to her by you in  <\/p>\n
      the presence of Inspr. O.P. Yadav and SI Arjun Singh.\n<\/p>\n
      The   above   act   on   the   part   of   you,   Ct.   Jai   Bhagwan   No.  <\/p>\n
      770\/A   amounts   to   gross   misconduct   and   unbecoming   of   a  <\/p>\n
      police officer which renders you liable to be punished Under  <\/p>\n
      Section 21 of D.P. Act, 1978.”\n<\/p>\n
5. Pursuant   to   the   initiation   of   the   aforesaid   enquiry,   an <\/p>\n
   enquiry officer was appointed, who examined four witnesses <\/p>\n
   produced   on   behalf   of   the   appellants.   Two   witnesses   were <\/p>\n
   also   produced   on   behalf   of   the   respondent.   After   recording <\/p>\n
   evidence and after appreciating the said evidence as also the <\/p>\n
                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
   written   defence   statement   of   the   respondent   a   report   was <\/p>\n
   submitted by the enquiry officer finding the respondent guilty <\/p>\n
   of the charge drawn up against him.\n<\/p>\n
6. With   the   aforesaid   records   and   the   findings,   matter   was <\/p>\n
   placed before the disciplinary authority who directed that any <\/p>\n
   representation   as   against   the   findings   recorded   by   the <\/p>\n
   enquiry   officer   could   be   submitted   by   the   respondent.\n<\/p>\n
   Pursuant   to   the   same,   the   respondent   submitted   a   detailed <\/p>\n
   representation   on   30.10.1995.   The   disciplinary   authority <\/p>\n
   after going through the entire records passed an order dated <\/p>\n
   15.11.1995   dismissing   the   respondent   from   service.   It   was <\/p>\n
   stated in the said order passed by the disciplinary authority <\/p>\n
   that   after   considering   the   evidence   on   record,   gravity   of <\/p>\n
   misconduct and overall facts \/ circumstances of the case it is <\/p>\n
   proved that the respondent misused his official position and <\/p>\n
   involved himself in corrupt practices \/ malpractices of illegal <\/p>\n
   gratification   and,   therefore,   he   is   not   a   fit   person   to   be <\/p>\n
   retained   in   the   police   force,   consequent   upon   which   the <\/p>\n
   punishment of dismissal was awarded to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
7. Being   aggrieved   by   the   aforesaid   order   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
  disciplinary   authority   the   respondent   filed   an   appeal   before <\/p>\n
  the   appellate   authority   which   was   also   dismissed   vide   its <\/p>\n
  order dated 19.01.1996. Consequently, the respondent filed a <\/p>\n
  revision   which   also   came   to   be   dismissed.   Feeling   still <\/p>\n
  aggrieved  the   respondent   filed  an   original   application   before <\/p>\n
  the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short “the Tribunal”] <\/p>\n
  which was registered as  OA No. 1755\/1997.  By order  dated <\/p>\n
  15.01.2001   the   Tribunal   dismissed   the   aforesaid   original <\/p>\n
  application   as   against   which   the   respondent   filed   a   Writ <\/p>\n
  Petition   in   the   High   Court   of   Delhi.   By   the   impugned <\/p>\n
  judgment   and   order   passed   on   20.01.2010   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
  allowed   the   Writ   Petition   filed   by   the   respondent.   In   the <\/p>\n
  aforesaid judgment and order the High Court made following <\/p>\n
  observations: –\n<\/p>\n
        “4.   Undoubtedly,   the   charges   of   misuse   of  <\/p>\n
        position   and   extortion   are   very   serious   charges.  <\/p>\n
        However,   before   a   person   is   fastened   with   the  <\/p>\n
        punitive   liability   of   charges   of   corruption   \/  <\/p>\n
        extortion,   a   proper   inquiry,   following   the  <\/p>\n
        principles of natural justice has to be conducted.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        5.   It   is   well   settled   that   the   High   Court   or   the  <\/p>\n
        Central  Administrative  Tribunal will  not interfere  <\/p>\n
                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
         with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic  <\/p>\n
         enquiry,   however,   if   the   case   is   a   case   of   no  <\/p>\n
         evidence   or   the   finding   is   highly   perverse   or  <\/p>\n
         improbable   then   it   is  the   duty   of   the   High  Court  <\/p>\n
         and   the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal   to   go  <\/p>\n
         into the merits of the case……”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
And while referring to the decision in the case of Kuldeep Singh <\/p>\n
v. Commissioner of Police<\/a>  reported in  AIR 1999 SC 677  the <\/p>\n
High Court held that the case of the appellants herein is a case <\/p>\n
of no evidence and that there is violation of Rule 16 (iii) of the <\/p>\n
Delhi   Police   (F   &A)   Rules,   1980   (for   short   “the   Rules”)   and <\/p>\n
ordered the reinstatement of respondent in service but without <\/p>\n
any back wages.\n<\/p>\n
8. As against that order of the High Court appellants have filed <\/p>\n
   the   present   appeal,   in   which,   notice   was   issued   and   upon <\/p>\n
   service of the said notice, the respondent entered appearance <\/p>\n
   and,   therefore,   we   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for <\/p>\n
   the parties and also perused the materials on record.\n<\/p>\n
9. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellants   submitted <\/p>\n
   that   there   was   enough   evidence   on   record   to   find   the <\/p>\n
   respondent guilty of the charge against him. In support of the <\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
  said   contention   reference   was   made   to   the   decision   of   the <\/p>\n
  disciplinary   authority   as   also   to   the   findings   of   the   enquiry <\/p>\n
  officer. It was also submitted that Inspector, O.P. Yadav and <\/p>\n
  S.I. Arjun Singh stated in clear terms that they had seen the <\/p>\n
  respondent   returning   the   aforesaid   amount   of   Rs.   100\/-   to <\/p>\n
  the   complainant.   It   was   also   submitted   that   there   was   no <\/p>\n
  violation   of   Rule   16(iii)   in   the   present   case   and,   therefore, <\/p>\n
  High   Court   was   not   justified   in   setting   aside   the   order   of <\/p>\n
  dismissal passed against the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, <\/p>\n
  while   refuting   the   aforesaid   contentions   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
  Mrs.   Ranjana   Kapoor,   complainant   of   the   case,   was   not <\/p>\n
  examined   as   witness   in   the   departmental   enquiry   and, <\/p>\n
  therefore,   there   was   no   opportunity   to   cross-examine   her <\/p>\n
  and, therefore, there is a violation of Rule 16(iii) of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
  It   was   also   submitted   that   so   far   as   the   receiving   of   illegal <\/p>\n
  gratification by the respondent is concerned, the case of the <\/p>\n
  appellants   is   a   case   of   no   evidence   at   all.   In   this   regard <\/p>\n
  support was also taken by the counsel appearing on behalf of <\/p>\n
                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
   the respondent from the statements of the Nirmala Devi [DW-\n<\/p>\n
   1].\n<\/p>\n
11.In   the   light   of   the   aforesaid   submissions   we   have   perused <\/p>\n
   the   records.   The   complainant   Mrs.   Ranjana   Kapoor <\/p>\n
   complained   about   the   said   incident   to   P.S.   Narang, <\/p>\n
   Operations Officer of Air France, who took the complainant to <\/p>\n
   O.P.   Yadav,   Inspector,   Delhi   Police   on   duty   at   the   Delhi <\/p>\n
   Airport and there she lodged the complaint to Inspector-O.P.\n<\/p>\n
   Yadav   that   the   respondent   has   extorted   illegal   gratification <\/p>\n
   from her amounting Rs. 100\/- during the course of security <\/p>\n
   check   of   passengers.   The   records   disclose   that   thereupon <\/p>\n
   Inspector-O.P.   Yadav   along   with   complainant   and   P.S. <\/p>\n
   Narang   went   to   the   place   of   the   security   check   where,   it   is <\/p>\n
   stated   that,   the   respondent   gave   Rs.   100\/-   to   the <\/p>\n
   complainant in the presence of Arjun Singh, S.I..\n<\/p>\n
12.O.P.   Yadav,   Inspector,   and   Arjun   Singh,   S.I.,   during   the <\/p>\n
   departmental   enquiry   proceedings   have   only   deposed   that <\/p>\n
   Rs.   100\/-   was   returned   by   the   respondent   to   the <\/p>\n
   complainant.   During   the   course   of   enquiry   proceedings   no <\/p>\n
                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
  witness   was   examined   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   to   prove <\/p>\n
  and   establish   by   tendering   any   direct,   cogent   and   reliable <\/p>\n
  evidence that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 100\/- was received <\/p>\n
  by the respondent by way of illegal gratification from anyone.\n<\/p>\n
13.In the present case the strange thing is that the two persons, <\/p>\n
  namely,  O.P.   Yadav  and  Arjun   singh,  on  the   basis   of whose <\/p>\n
  statement   present   case   was   initiated,   have   stated   that   they <\/p>\n
  have not witnessed\/seen respondent taking any money from <\/p>\n
  the   complainant   and   that  they   have   only   witnessed  the  fact <\/p>\n
  of   respondent   returning   money   to   the   complainant.   Even <\/p>\n
  otherwise, besides these  two persons, there must have been <\/p>\n
  many   other   persons   including   police   officers   on   duty   near <\/p>\n
  about   the   X-Ray   machine   belt   but   none   of   them   was   cited <\/p>\n
  and   examined   as   witness   during   the   departmental <\/p>\n
  proceedings   to   prove   and   establish   that   such   money   as <\/p>\n
  alleged was received by the respondent as illegal gratification.\n<\/p>\n
  The place where security check was carried out was an open <\/p>\n
  place and there must have been many other persons, besides <\/p>\n
  police   officers,   present   at   that   time   but   none   of   them   has <\/p>\n
                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
   been examined during the departmental proceedings against <\/p>\n
   the   respondent   to   prove   the   alleged   fact   of   demanding   and <\/p>\n
   receiving illegal gratification by him.\n<\/p>\n
14.In the present case, although there is some evidence that an <\/p>\n
   amount of Rs. 100\/- was returned by the respondent to the <\/p>\n
   complainant but there is no such direct and reliable evidence <\/p>\n
   produced by the appellants in the departmental proceedings <\/p>\n
   which   clearly   prove   and   establish   that   the   respondent <\/p>\n
   demanded   and   received   an   illegal   gratification   of   the   said <\/p>\n
   denomination.   It seems that the proof of taking such illegal <\/p>\n
   gratification   has   been  drawn   from   the   evidence   of   returning <\/p>\n
   of Rs. 100\/- to the complainant by way of a link up.\n<\/p>\n
15.It   also   seems   quite   impracticable   to   presume   that   in   the <\/p>\n
   presence of so many passengers, the respondent could have <\/p>\n
   extorted   money.     The   allegation   of   receiving   Rs.   100\/-   as <\/p>\n
   illegal   gratification   is   framed  on  suspicions   and   possibilities <\/p>\n
   while trying to link it up with the instance of returning back <\/p>\n
   of               Rs. 100\/- by the respondent to the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
   There   are   many   other   shortcomings   in   the   entire <\/p>\n
                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
   investigation   and   the   enquiry   like   the   statement   of   Mrs. <\/p>\n
   Ranjana   Kapoor   was   not   recorded   by   the   Inspector   and   the <\/p>\n
   Inspector   also   did   not   take   down   in   writing   and   also   attest <\/p>\n
   the   complaint   made   by   her.   The   statement   of   S.P.   Narang <\/p>\n
   was also not recorded by the Inspector nor did the Inspector <\/p>\n
   seize Rs. 100\/- note nor noted down its number. Mr. Narang <\/p>\n
   was   also   not   examined   during   the   course   of   departmental <\/p>\n
   proceedings.   Non-examination   of   the   complainant   and   P.S. <\/p>\n
   Narang   during   the   departmental   proceeding   has   denied   the <\/p>\n
   respondent of his right of cross-examination and thus caused <\/p>\n
   violation   of   Rule   16   (iii)   of   the   Delhi   Police   (F   &   A)   Rules, <\/p>\n
   1980.\n<\/p>\n
16.In the absence of such a definite\/clear proof supporting the <\/p>\n
   case of the appellants it is difficult to draw a finding of taking <\/p>\n
   illegal gratification by the respondent from the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
   Therefore, as rightly held by the High Court the present case <\/p>\n
   is a case of no evidence.\n<\/p>\n
17.Therefore,   in   view   of   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the <\/p>\n
   present case at hand we have no hesitation to hold that the <\/p>\n
                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
  view   taken   by   the   High   Court   does   not   suffer   from   any <\/p>\n
  infirmity   and   that   the   present   is   a   case   of   no   evidence   and <\/p>\n
  that there is a violation of Rule 16 (iii) of the Delhi Police (F <\/p>\n
  &A) Rules, 1980.\n<\/p>\n
18.Albeit  there could be  a  needle of suspicion pointed  towards <\/p>\n
  the respondent.  However, suspicion cannot take the place of <\/p>\n
  proof and, therefore, we find no merit in this appeal which is <\/p>\n
  hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
19.However, in the facts and circumstances of this case we not <\/p>\n
  only   reiterate   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   that   the <\/p>\n
  respondent   on   reinstatement   would   not   be   paid   any   back-\n<\/p>\n
  wages or arrears of wages for the period during which he was <\/p>\n
  out of service but we also observe that he would not be given <\/p>\n
  any sensitive posting and he shall be kept under watch.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ……………………………….\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                  ……J<\/p>\n
                                                               [Dr.   Mukundakam <\/p>\n
                                       Sharma ]<\/p>\n
                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
                     ……………………………………..J<\/p>\n
                              [ Anil R. Dave ]<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
May 10, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                 13<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011 Author: . M Sharma Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4213 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13331 of 2010] Commissioner of Police, Delhi & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-18T07:03:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-18T07:03:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2064,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-18T07:03:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-18T07:03:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-18T07:03:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011"},"wordCount":2064,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011","name":"Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-18T07:03:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-policedelhi-ors-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-10-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan on 10 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16717","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}