Court dismisses anticipatory bail plea of Bobby Kinner

The Rohini District Court has recently dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Bobi Kinner, a transgender Municipal Corporation of Delhi councillor, who is implicated in a case concerning a fraudulent caste certificate.
The court concluded that custodial interrogation is necessary to investigate the matter fully, noting potential involvement of a wider network in the issuance of the certificate.
The FIR against Kinner alleges that the fake caste certificate was utilized to contest the 2022 MCD elections for a reserved SC women’s seat in the Sultanpuri ward.
After reviewing the details of the case, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Kapil Kumar ruled against the bail application, emphasizing that the circumstances surrounding the certificate’s acquisition indicated the involvement of multiple individuals, including government officials.
“The manner in which the certificate was obtained reveals involvement of various persons at various levels,” the judge stated, underscoring the need for Kinner’s custodial interrogation to uncover the complete facts and evidence.
The court’s order, issued on October 4, reflected its determination that the case warranted deeper investigation. The court also highlighted issues with the application process, noting the submission of blurred and illegible documents and the apparent violations of procedural rules by authorities in Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
This raised suspicions of a broader nexus potentially implicated in the fraudulent issuance of the caste certificate. Additionally, the court criticized Kinner’s lack of cooperation with the investigation. Despite having received interim protection from arrest for over a month, Kinner reportedly failed to provide essential documents related to the application.
Kinner had initially filed for anticipatory bail on August 23, during which she was granted temporary protection from coercive measures contingent upon her cooperation in the investigation. Her counsel argued that the FIR was baseless and had been filed by the complainant through a misuse of legal provisions.
The complainant’s attorney and the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the FIR was registered following the assessment of conflicting reports regarding the same certificate, further justifying the need for custodial interrogation.