Delhi High Court
Shabuddine vs State Of Nct Delhi on 4 June, 2021
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 04.06.2021
+ BAIL APPLN. 1967/2021 & CRL.M.A. 8887/2021
SHABUDDINE ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abdul Gaffar, Advocate
Versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.Amit Mahajan & Mr.Rajat Nair,
Special Public Prosecutors with
Mr.Shantnu Sharma & Mr.Dhruv
Pande, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. Petitioner is seeking bail in FIR No. 119/2020, registered at police
station Khajuri Khas, Delhi for the offences under Sections
147/148/149/302/153A/505/120B/34 IPC and Sections 27/30 Arms Act on
the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
He is in custody since 20.03.2020.
2. Notice issued.
3. Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for
respondent/State accepts notice.
4. With the consent of both the sides, the present petition has been taken
up for final hearing and disposal.
5. The crux of the prosecution case is that FIR in question has been
registered at the instance of one Pappu, who has alleged that on 25.02.2020
at about 02:15 PM, when his brother, Babu, who is an auto driver by
profession, reached Khajuri Khas, he was attacked by the mob and received
grievous injuries. Thereafter, on 27.02.2020 he succumbed to the injuries
sustained during treatment in the hospital.
6. As per the charge sheet, during investigation in the present case,
through some source in social media, one video of riots dated 25.02.2020
came on record and the said was shown to the complainant of this FIR. In
the said video a person could be seen lying on the ground, who was
identified as deceased Babu by the complainant. The place of rioting was
identified as Pusta Road, 40-50 meters away from Khajuri Khas, Delhi. In
the course of further investigation, it was revealed that one official witness
Constable Amit had also sustained injuries in the said incident.
7. Thereafter, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of official witnesses
who were on duty in the said area on the day of riots, were recorded and
after further investigation, on 21.03.2020 two days PC remand of Shahbudin
(petitioner herein), Bharat Bhushan and Tayyab was obtained. The
disclosure statement of petitioner was recorded on the same day, wherein
petitioner admitted that on 25.02.2020 he was involved in riots with the
mob.
8. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he in conspiracy with the
other members of the mob, committed riots on the alleged day and pelted
stones on the other persons of the community. He has been duly identified
by the police officials who were on duty on that day. Besides, there are
statement of public eyewitnesses Dalip Sharma and Deepak Kumar against
him.
9. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner
is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submitted
that statement of official witness Head Constable Anil, who is allegedly the
eye witness of the incident, was recorded on 12.03.2020 and no PCR call of
the incident was made by the said witness. Also submitted that statement of
public witness Dalip was recorded on 15.04.2020 and that of Deepak was
recorded on 23.04.2021 and no PCR call was made by them too regarding
the alleged incident.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of petitioner is
at par with other accused who have been granted bail in this case. Learned
counsel also submits that there is no electronic evidence i.e. CCTV footage
etc. in this case, which further strengthens the case of petitioner for bail.
Lastly, he submitted, that this petition deserves to be allowed and petitioner
be released on bail.
11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has
opposed the present petition and submits that the role attributed to the
petitioner is different from the other accused and the evidence available on
record is highly reliable and, therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be
released on bail.
12. A perusal of material placed on record reveals that the statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of public witness, namely, Dilip, who had
allegedly identified petitioner, was recorded on 15.04.2020 i.e. after a lapse
of around 40 days and the said witness had not made a PCR call or
complaint on the day of the incident or even thereafter. Moreover, this
witness has claimed that he identified four accused persons, namely,
Tayyab, Adil, Farman, and the petitioner herein, but the fact remains that
two co-accused, namely, Tayyab and Adil have been released on bail vide
order dated 24.06.2020 and 06.05.2021 respectively.
13. Similarly, the statement of eye witness Deepak under Section 161
Cr.P.C. was recorded on 23.04.2020 i.e. after lapse of 57 days of the
incident and even he had not made any PCR call or complaint on the day of
incident or even thereafter. Also, four accused persons were identified by
him, namely, Israr, Iqubal, Maroof and the petitioner herein, and except
petitioner, other three have been released on bail.
14. According to charge sheet, the role attributed the petitioner is of being
part of the mob and participating in the riots and indulging in pelting stones.
How and in what matter the claim of prosecution that petitioner's role is
different than the other co-accused will be tested during trial. Charge sheet
in this case has been filed, however, charge is yet to be framed and trial will
take substantial time.
15. Keeping in view that there is no direct evidence like CCTV footage
etc. coupled with the fact that co-accused of petitioner have been granted
bail in this FIR case, I am of the view that petitioner deserves to be released
on bail on parity as well as on merit.
16. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the prosecution
case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith upon his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/ Duty Magistrate
concerned.
17. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influence any witness or
tamper with the evidence and will appear before the trial court as and when
directed.
18. With aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of, while
making it clear that any observation made herein shall not influence the trial
of the prosecution case.
19. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Trial Court and Jail
Superintendent concerned for information and compliance.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
JUNE 04, 2021
r
