Mohd. Mansoor vs State Of Nct Delhi
2021 Latest Caselaw 1518 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Reserved on: 19.05.2021
                                              Pronounced on: 24.05.2021
+     BAIL APPLN. 1360/2021
      MOHD. MANSOOR                                    ......Petitioner
                  Through:           Mr. Tanveer Ahmed & Mr.Kartik
                                     Venu, Advocates

                         Versus

      STATE OF NCT DELHI                                 ......Respondent
                    Through:         Mr. Amit Prasad, Special Public
                                     Prosecutor, Mr.Saransh &
                                     Mr.Ayodhya Prasad, Advocates
                                     With Inspector Gurmeet Singh
                                     Crime Branch

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                         JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking bail in FIR No.

60/2020, registered at police station Dayalpur, for the offences under

Sections 186/353/332/333/323/109/144/147/148/149/153-A/188/336/427/

307/97/412/302/201/120-B/34 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, read with Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms

Act,1959.

2. The FIR in question was registered on 25.02.2020 at the instance of

Constable Sunil, posted at police station Dayalpuri, Delhi, who on

24.02.2020 along with other members of the police team was deployed at

Chand Bagh, Delhi, and were brutally attacked by mob during riots. In the

alleged incident, Head Constable Ratan Lal lost his life and DCP Shahdara

and ACP Gokulpuri sustained grievous injuries.

3. During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined; their

statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded; crime spot was

inspected by the crime team; CCTV footages were retrieved from the

cameras installed by GNCTD and private persons; other exhibits were

collected and sent to FSL for expert opinion. Upon analysis of the CCTV

footages, the persons involved in the riots were identified and 22 persons,

including petitioner, were arrested. Consequently, charge sheet in this case

was filed on 08.06.2020. Thereafter, four supplementary charge sheets have

been filed on 30.06.2020, 20.08.2020, 17.11.2020 and 30.12.2020

respectively.

4. At the hearing, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of petitioner submitted that petitioner's name was not there in the FIR

in question and in the charge sheet. Thereafter, prosecuting agency further

investigated the case and filed three supplementary charge sheets, still

petitioner was not charge sheeted. However, his name has been mentioned

in the fourth supplementary charge sheet and the only allegations against the

petitioner is that in the footage of CCTV camera installed by GNCT of

Delhi and a video shot by one Vishal Chaudhary, he is seen as part of the

mob and pelting stones.

5. On the aforesaid aspect, it has further been pleaded on behalf of

petitioner that vide order dated 28.11.2020 petitioner was granted bail in

FIR No. 136/2020, where the prosecution had alleged that in the CCTV

footage of PWD camera, petitioner was seen carrying a 'danda' in his hand,

whereas in the CCTV footage played before this Court, petitioner is seen

walking empty handed. Further pleaded that in the CCTV footage the size of

the person sought to be identified is less than 01 cm and the prosecution

itself is unable to identify who actually the accused is.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has relied

upon testimony of Head Constable Mukesh, whose statement has already

been rejected by the trial court in order dated 28.11.2020. Further submitted

that in the alleged incident, unfortunately Head Constable Ratan Lal lost his

life but it is not the case of prosecution that the petitioner was found in

possession of pistol or rifle. Learned counsel also submitted that no weapon

of offence has been recovered from petitioner and being the local resident of

the area in question, it is obvious that call detail record would show

petitioner's presence in the said area.

7. In addition, learned counsel submitted that petitioner is suffering from

'Acute Transient Psychotic Disorder' (ATPD) and he was admitted at

Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, Dilshad Garden, Delhi

(IHBAS) from 19.12.2019 to 24.12.2019 and later was examined again on

17.02.2020 and was diagnosed having a disease in the nature of 'acute

ailment' and, therefore, on 24.02.2020 petitioner was suffering from the

above mental disorder.

8. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that Mohd. Danish, co-accused in

the present FIR case, has been granted bail by this Court and petitioner has a

good case on medical grounds as well as on merits and so, this petition

deserves to be allowed.

9. On the contrary, learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the

present petition by submitting that petitioner is a resident of Chand Bagh

and as per his call detail records, he was present at Main Wazirabad Road,

Chand Bagh where the alleged incident had taken place on 24.02.2020. The

petitioner had actively participated in the riots, he was a part of unlawful

assembly and has been duly identified by Constable Mukesh. Learned

Special Public Prosecutor played the video footage procured from CCTV

camera installed by GNCTD and video clipping shot by independent witness

Vishal Chaudhary, which he prepared from the terrace of Gym Body Fit

Garage, to submit that petitioner was a part of the mob and involved in

pelting stones upon the police personnel on duty. Next submitted that in

these videos petitioner is clearly seen as wearing dark brown colour kurta

with white check & yellowish Payjama (lower). Further submitted that

petitioner with intention to destroy evidence, had destroyed his mobile

phone and burnt his clothes.

10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that the learned

petitioner's counsel submission that petitioner was suffering from ATPD

and reliance placed upon a document dated 17.02.2021 to show that

petitioner was under treatment, is accepted at Bar, however, submitted that

there are different subtypes of ATPD, some of which have a maximum

duration of symptoms for one month and others for a maximum duration of

3 months.

11. Lastly submitted that in the alleged incident Head Constable Ratan

Lal died due to pistol fire shot and DCP Shahdara and ACP Gokulpuri had

sustained serious injuries. Moreover, witnesses to the case live in the

vicinity where petitioner lives and if petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would

endanger their lives.

12. In rebuttal, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the fire shot

from which Head Constable Ratan Lal was shot from the roof of Mohan

Nursing Home, whereas in the CCTV footage and video clipping played

before this Court, petitioner's hands are empty and no recovery has been

made from his possession and, therefore, no case is made out against the

petitioner and hence, petitioner deserves bail in this case.

13. The submissions advanced by both the sides were heard at length and

the material placed on record has been carefully considered.

14. From the CCTV footage and video clip played before this Court, there

is no iota of doubt that petitioner was a part of mob, which had disturbed the

peace and harmony of different communities by creating riots on

24.02.2021. In the still photographs shared on the screen before this Court,

petitioner has allegedly been shown wearing dark brown colour kurta with

white check & yellowish Payjama (lower). It is also apparent that the said

person (allegedly petitioner) is following the mob, walking empty handed

and in another clipping, he can be seen picking up stones from the road and

pelting on the police personnel who were trying to stop the mob. Hence, the

role attributed to the petitioner is being part of mob and of pelting stones on

the police officials on duty.

15. So far as the submission of learned petitioner's counsel that the

identification of petitioner is different in the CCTV footage played before

this Court and that the one before the trial court is concerned, the learned

trial court in the order dated 28.11.2020 while granting bail to the petitioner

in FIR No. 136/2020, registered at police station Dayalpur, Delhi, in Para-11

has observed that the prosecution had opposed the bail on the strength of

CCTV footage wherein petitioner could be seen holding a "danda" in his

hands and of having been specifically identified by official witness Beat

Constable Mukesh, but has doubted the statement of this witness Mukesh.

Though this Court refrains from commenting upon the credibility of Mukesh

amidst trial, yet takes notice of the fact that the identification of petitioner by

the prosecution before the trial court and this court is at variance. In one of

the videos played before this Court, a person (allegedly the petitioner)

'showing his back' and walking with the mob is shown, whereas in another

clipping, the distance between the camera and person is such that the face

and features cannot be seen clearly to identify correctly as to who the person

is. Further the case of prosecution is that petitioner had burnt his clothes to

hide his identity and these facts, prima facie brings the case of prosecution

under cloud.

16. Further the plea taken on behalf of the petitioner is that at the time of

alleged incident, he was suffering from Acute and Transient Psychotic

Disorder (ATPD) and this mental disease indicates that the patient would

suffer from delusions, hallucination, inconsistent and incoherent speech and

behaviour. To that effect, various medical prescriptions from IBHAS have

been placed on record to show that petitioner was hospitalized from

19.12.2019 to 24.12.2019 and lastly examined on 17.02.2020. In this regard,

the stand of prosecution is that there are different subtypes of ATPD, some

of which have a maximum duration of symptoms for one month and others

for a maximum duration of three months. The fact remains that the ground

of mental illness or fitness of petitioner is a matter of trial and if the person

shown in the CCTV footage and video played before this Court is the

petitioner, then he was a part of mob involved in riots and has pelted stones

on the police personnel with an intention to cause injury and harm and to

stop them in performing their duties. However, nothing stops the parties to

establish their case at trial.

17. Moreover, fourth charge sheet in this case has already been filed and

trial shall take substantial time. The petitioner is behind bars in this case

since 19.11.2020 and in view of facts and circumstances of this case, this

Court finds that petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for an

indefinite period of time.

18. In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the 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, while making it clear

that any observation made herein shall not influence either side during trial.

19. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influence any witness

and shall appear before the trial court as and when directed.

20. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Trial Court and Jail

Superintendent concerned for information and compliance.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE MAY 24, 2021 r