Delhi High Court
Mohd Bilal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 13 May, 2021
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 06.05.2021
Pronounced on: 13.05.2021
+ BAIL APPLN. 1410/2021
MOHD. BILAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohd. Wasiq Khan, Advocate
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Anuj Handa, Special Public
Prosecutor for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking bail
in FIR No.138/2020, under Sections 147/148/149/435/186/ 353/188//302/
201/120B IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at police station
Welcome, Delhi.
2. The FIR in question pertains to the incident of riots in North-East
Delhi on 25.02.2020 in which one person, namely, Mohd. Mudhasir, aged
around 30 years, had lost his life. Upon a telephonic information received
from GTB Hospital, Delhi that a person in injured and unconscious state has
been brought to the hospital by his wife and was declared brought dead.
Accordingly, pursuant to DD No. 53 A, the investigating team came into
motion and reached the hospital and collected the MLC by the Investigating
Officer. In the MLC it was mentioned that the patient was brought dead in
main casualty in unconscious and unresponsive state with A/H/O lying
unconscious due to a bullet shot. During investigation, post mortem of the
deceased was conducted at GTB Hospital on 27.02.2020 and seizure memo
of exhibits was prepared. In the post mortem report the doctor opined the
cause of death as "shock as a result of ante mortem injury to head produced
by projectile of fire arm".
3. During the course of further investigation, on 28.03.2020 statements
of Yasin Khan, father of deceased; Yusuf Khan, brother of deceased and
Ashiya malik, wife of deceased was recorded.
4. Ashiya Malik, wife of deceased, who had taken her husband to GTB
Hospital, in her statement stated that on 25.02.2020 at about 01:45 PM some
unknown persons brought her husband in her gali and left him there in
unconscious state and told her that her husband had sustained bullet injury
near Shamshan Ghat, Kabir Nagar, Delhi and so, she took him to the
hospital where the doctor declared him brought dead.
5. Further investigation in this case was carried out and various video,
images and recordings were collected from Cyber Cell, Crime Branch and in
one such video, the deceased was seen sustaining injury. In the said video,
petitioner-accused can be seen as the person who had fired the shot on the
deceased, who was standing right next to him. In the said fire, the deceased
had sustained bullet injury on the right side of his head, above the ear, which
took his life.
6. One accused, namely, Zahid who had allegedly participated in the
riots, was apprehended by the investigating team, who during his police
remand in his disclosure statement admitted of having participated in riots at
Shamshan Ghat, Kabir Nagar area where the incident took place. On his
disclosure, two more accused, namely, Imran @ Cheera and Asif were
apprehended and produced before the Court on 14.04.2020. During
interrogation, Imran @ Cheera and Asif admitted that they were part of
rioting mob near Shamshan Ghat, Kabir Nagar and when during police
custody they were shown the video of the alleged incident, they disclosed
name of Mohd. Bilal and said he was firing on the day of incident and had
also damaged CCTV cameras in the said area.
7. Thereafter, upon being duly identified by Constable Sunder and
pursuant to recording of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., notice was
served upon petitioner herein and he joined the investigation on 11.06.2020.
8. In his disclosure statement petitioner admitted having participated in
mob during riots on 25.02.2020 and the fact that he was firing towards the
police party but received a push from the mob and deceased Mudhasir came
into his firing line and sustained gun shot injury. He also confessed having
damaged the CCTV cameras in the riotous areas on 24.02.2020. During PC
remand, the investigation team searched for weapon of offence and the
clothes which petitioner was wearing at the time of alleged incident but
could not recover, however, the shoes he wore were recovered and seized.
9. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
petitioner had no communication with any of the accused who were part of
mob during riots and there is nothing in the charge sheet to suggest that
petitioner had entered into any conspiracy with a common intent to cause
riots. Further submitted that on the day of alleged incident, petitioner was
not even present in the said area and till date call detail record of petitioner's
mobile, which was seized during investigation, has not been placed on
record.
10. Lastly, learned counsel tried to persuade this Court to take a lenient
view towards petitioner, as his wife is suffering from kidney problem and
his parents have already expired and there is no other member in the family
to take care of her and his five years old minor child.
11. On the contrary, learned Special Public Prosecutor for State opposed
the present petition and submitted that one eye witness- Mr. Babu Dule, has
stated that the petitioner along with other accused had damaged the CCTV
installed in the riotous area and the shoes worn by petitioner/accused at the
time of alleged incident have been recovered at his instance. He further
submitted that accused Imran and Asif in their disclosure statements have
named petitioner having actively participated in the alleged incident and
further one official witness, Constable Sunder, has also identified him. Also
submitted that petitioner in his disclosure statement has himself admitted
having fired the pistol shot from which Mohd. Mudhasir had died.
12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor next submitted that the petitioner is
a habitual offender and against him another FIR of attempt to murder has
been registered at police station Bhajanpura, Delhi.
13. Lastly, submitted that though charge sheet has been filed but the FSL
report is still awaited and further investigation is also in progress and at this
stage, petitioner's release on bail will hamper the judicial process of law.
14. The rival contentions raised by both the sides were heard in detail and
the material placed on record has been perused.
15. During the course of hearing, learned Special Public Prosecutor had
played a video clip and shown some still photographs wherein petitioner
was seen a day prior to the alleged incident in the said area, standing in the
middle of the street with a large group of young boys and having a close
look at the CCTV cameras installed in the area. In the video he is clearly
seen talking with the boys for some time and in another shot, he is seen
climbing ladder to damage a CCTV camera installed. Even though petitioner
had tried to hide his identity by rounding off a muffler or cloth round his
face and neck and taken off his jacket, which he wore in the first shot, but he
can be easily identified not just with his body built but also the trouser and
shoes he wore at the relevant time.
16. Pertinently, the said video was shot a day prior to the alleged incident
of riots. Petitioner's presence in the area on 24.02.2020, his body language
while talking to a large group of boys and damaging the CCTV cameras by
climbing a ladder, prima facie shows his mala fide intention to hatch a
conspiracy with other persons, who were part of the mob to commit riots
which were designed to occur on 25.02.2020.
17. Petitioner's stand that he was not even present in the said area on
25.02.2020 is yet to be established and his further plea that prosecution has
not been able to produce his call detail record and location of his mobile,
cannot be accepted on the face of it, as the stand of the prosecution is that
FSL report as well as call detail record are awaited and further investigation
in this FIR case is also in progress and supplementary charge sheet is yet to
be filed.
18. Most importantly, how petitioner will establish his innocence despite
having been caught on camera damaging and destroying CCTV cameras
installed in the area of riots, just one day before the alleged incident, is
subject to trial.
19. Further, petitioner is a Bad Character (BC) of the area and one case
for attempt to murder is pending to his credit and in this FIR case also, a
person has lost his life.
20. The aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and the technical
evidence produced before this Court, coupled with fact that investigation is
in progress and supplementary charge sheet is yet to be filed, this Court does
not find it a fit case to grant relief of bail to petitioner at this stage.
21. The petition is accordingly dismissed, while making it clear that any
observation made herein shall not influence the case of either side on merits
during trial.
22. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Trial Court and Jail
Superintendent concerned for information.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
MAY 13, 2021
r
