A Delhi court has directed the Commissioner of Police to correct criminal records after finding a man was falsely listed in 17 cases. The court observed that the individual, Ajay Rathi, was wrongly implicated in e-FIRs despite no evidence or arrest. This decision follows a bail hearing where the accuracy of police data was challenged.
A Delhi court has issued a strong directive to the Delhi Police Commissioner to rectify inaccuracies in their criminal record-keeping system. The order follows a judicial review of a bail application by Ajay Rathi, who had been accused of involvement in a high number of criminal cases. During the proceedings at the Saket district court, Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri examined the data presented by the police and identified significant errors regarding the number of cases filed against the accused.
While the initial police records suggested that the accused was involved in 36 separate cases, a deeper court-ordered verification proved that he was actually involved in only five. The court specifically highlighted that the accused had been incorrectly marked as involved in 17 e-FIRs registered in 2017. The judge clarified that an individual cannot be legally cited as involved in a case if they have not been arrested or charged in relation to that specific FIR. Consequently, the court ordered the Commissioner of Police to take corrective steps to ensure such errors do not occur in the future, as inaccurate data can have serious consequences for individuals.
The bail application itself concerned a case registered at the Maidan Garhi police station, which appeared to be linked to an ongoing family dispute. Arguments presented by the defense suggested that the allegations against Rathi, including charges of theft, were fabricated to hinder his property rights. Additionally, the defense raised concerns regarding a potential conflict between the accused and a local police official. While the prosecution provided CCTV evidence to support their case, the court noted that the credibility of the police's overall record-keeping had been compromised by the discovery of the 17 falsely attributed e-FIRs.
In reaching its decision to grant regular bail, the court considered that other individuals named in the same FIR had already secured relief. Evidence, including hotel records and CCTV footage, supported alibis for co-accused persons. Given the discrepancies in the police reports and the bail status of others involved, the court concluded that continued custody was not warranted. The primary follow-up for observers will be the police department's response to the court's directive and any subsequent updates regarding the internal process for verifying and maintaining criminal records to prevent such systemic inaccuracies.