The Delhi High Court has held that the failure of CDR to prove the presence of accused at the crime scene leads to the bail of the accused.
Background of the Case
A rickshaw driver was imprisoned since April 2020 in the Delhi riot case was granted bail by the Delhi High Court recently, on the account that the CDR failed to establish his presence at the place where the riots took place.
The ruling came pursuant to an FIR registered for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/302/201/436/427/120-B/34 IPC.
Case of the Prosecution
In view of the prosecution, on February 26, 2020, rioting, stone pelting and chanting of anti- Hindu slogans in the area of North- East Delhi took place; a mob was alleged to cause damage to the nearby shops and property. Moreover one corpse was found without hands and legs in a
burnt condition in a sweet shop.
Case of the Petitioner
The petitioner asked for the grant of bail on the ground that the case of the prosecution was “insubstantial” and was based on the testimony of student of 12 th standard and his CDR location. The petitioner also pointed out the content of the FIR claiming that in the FIR also it is stated that the CDR location failed to establish his presence at the precise incident site, further added that it was only in close proximity with the site where the rioting took place.
Question on the credibility of the testimony of the witness from the side of the prosecution were also raised.
Observation of the Court
Taking into consideration the submissions presented by the petitioner and that the sole evidence against the petitioner was under Sections 147/148/149/153-A IPC, the Court approved the bail application of the accused. In the words of the Court “It is not in dispute that the prosecution has admitted the factum that CDR location of the petitioner does not establish his presence at the incident site in bail application No.214/2021 filed by the petitioner in FIR No. 134/2020 before Ld. ASJ.
This admission supports the case of the petitioner that his CDR locations re only in close vicinity of the incident site for he resides in Shakti Vihar which is close to the incident site and his possibility is there being an auto rickshaw puller. Further, while allowing the bail application No. 214/2021, the Ld. ASJ took into consideration the credibility value of the testimony of Roop Singh a prime witness in the present FIR No. 39/2020.”
Thus:
“In view of the aforesaid facts, however without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case, I am of the view, the petitioner deserves bail”, bench opined. The Court made it clear that the trial court shall not be impacted by the observations made by it.
Case Details
Before: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rashid v. State
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait.
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :