Considering these facts, the Court asked the police whether it had looked into the complainant’s actions. In response, the State assured the Court that the complainant’s role would be examined to ascertain whether offences were made out against him also.
The Court said the State was expected to look into this aspect on its own.
“However, till date no such consideration or exercise seem to have been undertaken by the respondent-State, thus, the delay on such aspect is attributable to the State itself,” it added.
The Court said that before hearing the anticipatory bail petitions any further, it would be appropriate that the factual as well as legal position of the matter are examined by the State.
“Accordingly, without expressing any kind of opinion on the facts of the case or on merit, present proceeding is deferred to enable the State to place before the Court the complete factual and legal position, including the role of the complainant and any other person, if so warranted,” the Court ordered.
It was these directions which were objected to by Mann.