Delhi High Court
Mohd. Tahir vs State on 18 January, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th JANUARY, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021
MOHD. TAHIR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior
Advocate, Mr Bilal Anwar Khan
Advocate, Ms Anshu Kapoor, Ms
Tehsina Z Hussain and Ms.
ShamaUsmani, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Mahajan, SPP with Mr.
Rajat Nair, SPP with Mr. Dhruv
Pande and Mr. Shantnu Sharma,
Advoctes with SI Surender Kumar,
PS Crime Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The Petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.39/2020 dated 28.02.2020
registered at P.S. Gokul Puri for offences under Sections
147/148/149/302/436/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter,
"IPC").
2. The FIR relates to the violence that took place in the National Capital
Territory of Delhi in the month of February 2020.
3. The brief facts leading to the instant Bail Application are that a protest
against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter, "CAA") had
been taking place, and in relation to this, the Complainant (ASI Gajraj
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page
SINGH 1 of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
Singh) received a PCR call vide DD No. 17A on 26.02.2020 that some
rioters were pelting stones on Street No.1, near Kabir Builder, Bhagirathi
Vihar. As per the FIR, the Complainant rushed to Bhagirathi Vihar where he
was informed by a Beat Constable who in turn was informed by some
people that the house of owner of Anil Sweets, which was located in
Chaman Park, Main Brijpuri Road, had been set ablaze by rioters.
4. The FIR states that when the Complainant and the Beat Constable
reached the said house, they found the door to be broken and house to be
completely burnt. On inspecting the second floor, the Complainant noticed a
semi-burnt body lying in the corner. The FIR further states that the deceased
seemed to be about 20 years old, and that both the arms and legs of the body
were chopped off. It is stated that the chopped limbs could not be found, and
that on inquiry, it was found that the burnt body belonged to a person named
Dilbar who was a waiter at the sweet house. The body was then sent to GTB
Hospital and then to the GTB Hospital mortuary. The FIR states that it
appears that unknown persons belonging to one of the parties opposing and
supporting the CAA killed the deceased with a deadly weapon and then set
the house ablaze with the intent to destroy the evidence of the crime.
5. It is stated that investigation is now complete and chargesheet has
been filed against the Petitioner on 04.06.2020 wherein the Petitioner has
been added. The chargesheet states that there is sufficient material to
proceed against the Petitioner herein under Sections
144/147/148/149/188/153A/302/201/427/436/120-B/34 of the IPC. A
supplementary chargesheet has also been filed on 07.07.2020.
6. Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, has submitted that the Petitioner has been wrongly arraigned in
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page
SINGH 2 of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
the present FIR in which he has neither been named nor properly identified.
He has submitted that the Petitioner is a poor young man who is the sole
breadwinner of his family and is a mechanic who repairs tools. He has
submitted that there are serious lacunae in the investigation, starting from
the statement of witness Shyam Singh being recorded twice on the same day
on 28.02.2020.
7. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the CDR cannot not be
relied upon to discern the participation of the Petitioner in the alleged crime
as the Petitioner resides at D-43, Gali No. 27, Vijay Park, Maujpur, and that
the Petitioner's elder brother has a shop bearing No.6, Main Brijpuri Road,
Delhi - 10094 adjoining the DRP School which is close to the scene of
crime (SOC). He has submitted that the Petitioner has been working at his
brother's shop for the last 15 years which could be why his location was
found to be near the SOC. Mr. Khurshid has raised the issue that the time of
death of the victim can be ascertained from the chargesheet which states
that the CDR of the deceased indicates that he made the last two calls at 8:18
PM and 9:07 PM on 24.02.2020. He has submitted that the CDR along with
the Cell ID of the Petitioner shows that he was not present in Mustafabad
after 07:14:01 PM on 24.02.2020, and therefore, it cannot be said that the
Petitioner was involved in the death of the deceased.
8. Mr. Khurshid has submitted that the only evidence against the
Petitioner is the CCTV footage, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of
Amit Pal, and the CDR, and these are matters which must go through the
rigours of trial. He has further submitted that co-accused Rashid @ Monu
has been granted bail by this Court vide Order dated 22.02.2021 and,
therefore, on the ground of parity, the Petitioner herein is also entitled to
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page
SINGH 3 of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
bail. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Petitioner was only
present before Rajdhani Public School to collect certain articles and that he
merely closed his shop and returned to his home. It has further been argued
by the learned Senior Counsel that the body of the deceased had been
recovered by the police on 26.02.2020 and that the FIR was only registered
on 28.02.2020, and thus, there was an unexplained delay in registration of
the FIR.
9. Per contra, Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned APP for the State, has
submitted that the Petitioner had actively participated in the deadly riots on
24.02.2020 wherein the deceased Dilbar Negi was burnt alive. He has
submitted that the present case emerges from a deep-rooted conspiracy
which was hatched under the garb of democratically opposing CAA.
10. Mr. Mahajan has submitted that the Petitioner was identified in the
CCTV footage retrieved from Rajdhani Public School where he could be
seen instigating others. Pointing at the CCTV footage (CP IP Cam), the
learned APP has indicated that the Petitioner has been identified at 3:37:39
PM in a printed white shirt and that the posture of the Petitioner is not that
of a curious onlooker. He has submitted that the Petitioner can be seen
gesturing and instigating other members of the unlawful assembly.
11. The learned APP has brought the attention of the Court to the gravity
of the offences that have been invoked against the Petitioner and has stated
that he is relying upon the heinousness of the crime while opposing the
instant bail application. He has submitted that the object of Section 149 IPC
is different as it is impossible to identify everyone and that it is enough if
one can show that the accused is a part of the riotous mob which led to the
death of the victim. He has submitted that it is of no consequence that no
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page
SINGH 4 of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
specific conduct can be attributed to the Petitioner and that having
participated in the riotous mob, the Petitioner is responsible for not only his
own actions, but also the actions of the others.
12. The learned APP has relied on the judgment of this Court whereby co-
accused Ashraf Ali was denied bail vide Order dated 14.10.2020 in BAIL
APPLN. 2614/2020 wherein this Court had observed that there was a prima
facie finding that the Petitioner therein was a part of the unlawful assembly
which was responsible for setting fire to the godown in which the deceased
Dilbar Negi was found burnt alive. This Court had further observed that the
offence committed was serious and heinous enough to not enlarge the
Petitioner therein. He has also argued that the Petitioner is not entitled to
seek parity with co-accused Rashid @ Monu, given the nature and quality of
evidence against the Petitioner.
13. Mr. Mahajan has further argued that that Ld. Trial Court vide Order
dated 18.08.2020 had also dismissed the Petitioner's bail application on the
ground of heinousness of the offence. He has, therefore, submitted before
this Court that there has been no change of circumstances and that period of
incarceration undergone by the accused is not relevant while considering
grant of bail. He has submitted that Section 436A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure specifically provides for the maximum period for which an
accused can be in custody while the trial is underway, and therefore, it
should not be a relevant factor for grant of bail. Furthermore, Mr. Mahajan
has submitted that the eyewitnesses reside in the same area as the Petitioner
and may be susceptible to being influenced or threatened if the Petitioner is
enlarged on bail.
14. The Court has heard Mr. Salman Khurshid learned Senior Counsel for
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page
SINGH 5 of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
the Petitioner, and Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned APP, with Mr. Dhruv Pande.
The Court has also perused the material on record.
15. A perusal of the chargesheet indicates that during the course of
investigation in FIR No. 134/2020 registered at P.S. Dayalpur, two CCTV
footages were retrieved from Rajdhani Public School - one on the corner
wall of the school covering the sweet shop between Rajdhani Public School
and Anil Pastry Shop, and another inside Rajdhani School near the main
entry gate covering main Brijpuri Road, A-29, Chaman Park and some part
of gate and railings of Rajdhani Public School. It is stated that in the
chargesheet that though the case was registered on 28.02.2020, the incident
was of 24.02.2020. The chargesheet, however, notes that the incident of the
murder of Dilbar Negi was well-planned and was committed with the
intention to disrupt law and order, and disturb communal harmony.
16. It is further stated in the chargesheet that during investigation, it had
been found vide the CDR of the deceased that two calls at 08:18 P.M. and
09:07 P.M. had been made to Mahesh Yadav, a co-worker of the deceased
on the night of 24.02.2020 and that the same had been confirmed by Mahesh
who informed the IO that the deceased told him that he was hiding in the
building. The chargesheet states that the statement of Mahesh Yadav is yet
to be recorded as he is not in Delhi. It is pertinent to note that a perusal of
the CDR reveals a call was received at around 8 PM and the duration of the
call was one minute.
17. The chargesheet additionally states that the CDR of the Petitioner
places him at the location of the scene of crime. Further, the statement of
Amit Pal under Section 161 Cr.P.C. ascertains that the Petitioner was in
front of Rajdhani Public School, raising slogans against Hindus and
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page
SINGH 6 of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
provoking a crowd of Muslim boys. It states that the Petitioner was involved
in pelting stones and setting fire to the shops. A perusal of the video footage
shows that the Petitioner was seen on the CCTV camera of CP IP Cam at
03:41:59 PM which shows him before Rajdhani Public School on the day of
the incident. It indicates the Petitioner herein calling out to others present in
the mob.
18. In the instant case, the issue which arises for consideration is that
when an offence of murder is committed by an unlawful assembly, then
whether each person in the unlawful assembly should be denied the benefit
of bail, regardless of his role in the unlawful assembly or the object of the
unlawful assembly. In order to understand this, it is useful to refer to Section
149 IPC which reads as follows:
"149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of
offence committed in prosecution of common object.-
If an offence is committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object
of that assembly, or such as the members of that
assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person who, at the
time of the committing of that offence, is a member of
the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."
(emphasis supplied)
19. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in order to convict an
accused with the aid of Section 149, a clear finding needs to be given by the
Court regarding the nature of unlawful common object. Furthermore, if any
such finding is absent or if there is no overt act on behalf of the accused, the
mere fact that the accused was present or armed would not be sufficient to
prove common object.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page
SINGH 7 of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
20. In Kuldip Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 324, the
Supreme Court has categorically stated:
"39. It is not the intention of the legislature in
enacting Section 149 to render every member of
unlawful assembly liable to punishment for every
offence committed by one or more of its members. In
order to attract Section 149, it must be shown that the
incriminating act was done to accomplish the
common object of unlawful assembly and it must be
within the knowledge of other members as one likely
to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
If the members of the assembly knew or were of the
likelihood of a particular offence being committed in
prosecution of the common object, they would be
liable for the same under Section 149."
21. In Sherey and Ors. v. State of U.P., (1991) Supp (2) SCC 437, the
Supreme Court considered as to whether Section 149 of the IPC could be
applied to hold an accused constructively liable on the basis of omnibus
allegations made by witnesses and on the basis of their mere presence at the
spot/scene of crime.
"4. We have carefully gone through the evidence. We
have no doubt that all the eye-witnesses were present.
Nothing significant has been elicited in their cross-
examination. However, the eye-witnesses simply named
these appellants and identified them. So, the question is
whether it is safe to convict all the appellants. In a case
of this nature, the evidence of the witnesses has to be
subjected to a close scrutiny in the light of their former
statements. The earliest report namely the FIR has to
be examined carefully. No doubt in their present
deposition they have described the arms carried by the
respective accused but we have to see the version given
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page
SINGH 8 of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
in the earliest report. In that report PW 1 after
mentioning about the earlier proceedings has given a
fairly detailed account of the present occurrence. He
has mentioned the names of the witnesses and also the
names of the three deceased persons. Then he
proceeded to give a long list of names of the accused
and it is generally stated that all of them were
exhorting and surrounded the PWs and the other
Hindus and attacked them. But to some extent specific
overt acts are attributed to appellants 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
17, 22 and 25. It is mentioned therein that these nine
accused were armed with deadly weapons and were
seen assaulting the deceased Ram Narain and others.
Now in the present deposition he improved his version
and stated that in addition to these nine accused, five
more persons also attacked the deceased and others. In
view of this variation we think that it is safe to convict
only such of the appellants who are consistently
mentioned as having participated in the attack from the
stage of earliest report. With regards the rest PW 1
mentioned in an omnibus way that they were armed
with lathis. He did not attribute any overt act to any
one of them. Further, the medical evidence rules out
any lathis having been used. The doctor found only
incised injuries on the dead bodies and on the injured
PWs. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the prosecution
case that the other appellants were members of the
unlawful assembly with the object of committing the
offences with which they are charged. We feel it highly
unsafe to apply Section 149 IPC and make everyone
of them constructively liable. But so far as the above
nine accused are concerned the prosecution version is
consistent namely that they were armed with lethal
weapons like swords and axes and attacked the
deceased and others. This strong circumstance
against them establishes their presence as well as
their membership of the unlawful assembly. The
learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page
SINGH 9 of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
contended that the fact that the Muslims as a body
came to the scene of occurrence would show that they
were members of an unlawful assembly with the
common object of committing various offences
including that of murder. Therefore all of them
should be made constructively liable. But when there
is a general allegation against a large number of
persons the Court naturally hesitates to convict all of
them on such vague evidence. Therefore we have to
find some reasonable circumstance which lends
assurance..." (emphasis supplied)
22. It is, therefore, noted that the applicability of Section 149 IPC,
specifically read with Section 302, cannot be done on the basis of vague
evidence and general allegations. When there is a crowd involved, at the
juncture of grant or denial of bail, the Court must hesitate before arriving at
the conclusion that every member of the unlawful assembly inhabits a
common intention to accomplish the unlawful common object. There cannot
be an umbrella assumption of guilt on behalf of every accused by the Court,
and every decision must be taken based on a careful consideration of the
facts and circumstances in the matter therein. This principle, therefore, gains
utmost importance when the Court considers the question of grant or denial
of bail. The submission of the learned APP in this regard, thus, does not hold
water.
23. With regard to the submission that if there appears to be reasonable
grounds that the accused has committed an offence which is punishable with
death or life imprisonment, then there is a bar imposed by Section 437(1)
Cr.P.C on granting of bail, this Court states that the case of Gurcharan
Singh(supra) also acknowledges that it is the Court which has the last say on
whether there exists any reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page 10KIRMOLIYA
of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
guilty of committing the said offence. Furthermore, there is no blanket bar
as such which is imposed on the Court on granting of bail in such cases and
that the Court can exercise discretion in releasing the accused, as long as
reasons are recorded which clearly disclose how the discretion has been
exercised. Additionally, in the case of the Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P.,
(2020) SCCOnline 75, the Supreme Court has held that despite the alleged
offence being grave and serious, and there being several criminal cases
pending against the accused, these factors by themselves cannot be the basis
for the refusal of prayer for bail.
24. In the case of Gurcharan Singh (supra), the Supreme Court had held
as follows:
"24. Section 439(1), Cr.P.C. of the new Code, on the
other hand, confers special powers on the High Court
or the Court of Session in respect of bail. Unlike under
Section 437(1) there is no ban imposed under Section
439(1), Cr.P.C. against granting of bail by the High
Court or the Court of Session to persons accused of an
offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life.
It is, however, legitimate to suppose that the High
Court or the Court of Session will be approached by an
accused only after he has failed before the Magistrate
and after the investigation has progressed throwing
light on the evidence and circumstances implicating
the accused. Even so, the High Court or the Court of
Session will have to exercise its judicial discretion in
considering the question of granting of bail under
Section 439(1), Cr.P.C. of the new Code. The over-
riding considerations in granting of bail to which we
adverted to earlier and which are common both in the
case of Section 43791) and Section 439(1), Cr.P.C. of
the new Code are the nature and gravity of the
circumstances in which the offence is committed; the
position and the status of the accused with reference to
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page 11KIRMOLIYA
of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the
accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence;
of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim
prospect of possible conviction in the case; of
tampering with witnesses; the history of the caseas
well as its investigation and other relevant grounds
which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be
exhaustively set out."
25. The Petitioner was arrested on 01.04.2020 and has been in judicial
custody since then. It has been 21 months since the arrest of the Petitioner.
Bail jurisprudence attempts to bridge the gap between the personal liberty of
an accused and ensuring social security remains intact. It is the intricate
balance between securing the personal liberty of an individual and ensuring
that this liberty does not lead to an eventual disturbance of public order. It is
egregious and against the principles enshrined in our Constitution to allow
an accused to remain languishing behind bars during the pendency of the
trial. Therefore, the Court, while deciding an application for grant of bail,
must traverse this intricate path very carefully and thus take multiple factors
into consideration before arriving at a reasoned order whereby it grants or
rejects bail.
26. In this context, the submissions of the learned APP that co-accused
Ashraf Ali was denied bail by way of an Order of this Court dated
14.10.2020 and that the duration of incarceration is not relevant while
considering an application for grant of bail cannot be countenanced. In the
case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2021),
the Supreme Court had upheld an Order granting bail to a person accused of
offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, on the
ground that though charges levelled against the accused were grave and
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page 12KIRMOLIYA
of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
serious, however, the length of the period spent in custody and the
unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon outweighed the seriousness of the
charges. Relevant portion of the Order in Union of India v. K.A.
Najeeb(supra)reads as under:
"19. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious
of the fact that the charges levelled against the
respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal
harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we
would have outrightly turned down the respondent's
prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the
period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood
of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High
Court appears to have been left with no other option
except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to
strike a balance between the appellant's right to
lead evidence of its choice and establish the
charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the
respondent's rights guaranteed under Part III of
our Constitution have been well protected."
(emphasis supplied)
27. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (supra), the Supreme Court had
further observed that once it was made obvious that a timely trial would not
be possible and that the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant
period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.
Similar stands have been taken by the Supreme Court in Sagar Tatyaram
Gorkhe v. State of Maharashtra, [SLP (Crl.) No. 6888/2015] and Supreme
Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of
India, (1994) 6 SCC 73) wherein the Supreme Court has emphasised the
importance of the principle of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page 13KIRMOLIYA
of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
the Constitution of India and noted that no person ought to suffer adverse
consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral
arbiter.
28. In the aforementioned judgements, bail was granted to the accused
therein on the ground that the accused had been in custody for a prolonged
duration of time. It was done despite the stringency of the provisions
pertaining to grant of bail in the statutes which had been invoked in those
matters.
29. The Order of this Court rejecting bail to co-accused Ashraf Ali in
BAIL APPLN. 2614/2020 was pronounced on 04.10.2020 when the matter
was at its initial stages. More than a year has passed since then and trial in
the matter is yet to commence. It can, therefore, be said that the Petitioner
herein has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time and that the
precedential value of the Order dated 04.10.2020 will not apply in the case
herein. With these facts and circumstances, the judgement in Union of India
v. K.A. Najeeb (supra) applies to the instant case.
30. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496,
the Supreme Court laid down the parameters for granting or refusing the
grant of bail which are as under:
"i. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground tobelieve that the accused had committed the
offence;
ii. nature and gravity of the accusation;
iii. severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
iv. Danger of the accused absconding or fleeting, if
released on bail;
v. character, behavior, means, position and standing
of the accused;
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page 14KIRMOLIYA
of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
vi. Likelihood of the offence being repeated;
vii. Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
viii. Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail."
31. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar,(2020) 2 SCC 118, the Supreme Court
had observed as under:
"12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the
grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous
factors, among which the nature of the offence, the
severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of
the involvement of the accused are important. No
straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an
application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the
stage of assessing whether a case is fit for grant of
bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed
analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond
reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the
accused. That is a matter of trial. However, the Court
is required to examine whether there is a prima facie
or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had
committed the offence and on a balance of the
considerations involved, the continued custody of the
accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice
system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court,
an appellate court must be slow and ought to be guided
by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to
set aside bail."
32. It is the Constitutional duty of the Court to ensure that there is no
arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in the face of excess of State power.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and Courts must exercise their
jurisdiction to uphold the tenets of personal liberty, subject to rightful
regulation of the same by validly enacted legislation. The Supreme Court
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page 15KIRMOLIYA
of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
has time and again held that Courts need to be alive to both ends of the
spectrum, i.e. the duty of the Courts to ensure proper enforcement of
criminal law, and the duty of the Courts to ensure that the law does not
become a tool for targeted harassment.
33. As has been stated above, the Petitioner herein has been in custody for
21 months and was formally added by way of chargesheet dated 04.06.2020.
A perusal of the material on record has revealed to the Court that the sole
evidence that is available at this juncture against the Petitioner is his
presence in the CCTV footage, the statement of Amit Pal, and the CDR
which places the Petitioner at the SOC. However, the authenticity of all of
these materials are to be tested during the course of trial and cannot form the
basis for the prolonged incarceration of the Petitioner.
34. The material on record discloses that the deceased received a phone
call after 8:00 PM and the call detail record indicates that the phone call had
been picked up and lasted for a minute. This Court, therefore, can infer that
the deceased was probably alive at that point of time. Further, the CCTV
footage places the petitioner at the scene of crime only around 4:00 PM.
Taking this into account, this Court is of the opinion that it would be too
much of a stretch to state that the petitioner was present at the SoC when the
alleged murder was committed after a gap of almost six hours between the
petitioner's presence at the SoC and the deceased's alleged time of death.
Therefore, the petitioner's presence at the SoC is inconclusive at this
juncture and can only be confirmed during the course of trial and cannot
justify the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner at this point of time.
35. The chargesheet and the supplementary chargesheet have already
been filed. The chargesheet indicates that there are currently 72 witnesses
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page 16KIRMOLIYA
of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
who need to be examined and, therefore, trial in the matter is likely to take a
long time. This Court is of the opinion that it would not be prudent to keep
the Petitioner behind bars for an undefined period of time at this stage. The
Petitioner has roots in society, and, therefore, there is no danger of him
absconding and fleeing.
36. In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, without
commenting on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the
Petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of
time, and that the veracity of the allegations levelled against him can be
tested during trial.
37. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner in
FIR No. 39/2020 dated 28.02.2020 registered at P.S. Gokalpuri for offences
under Sections 144/147/148/149/188/153A/302/201/427/436/120-B/34 of
the IPC on the following conditions:
a) The Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
₹35,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
b) The Petitioner shall not leave NCT of Delhi without prior
permission of this Court.
c) The petitioner is directed to attend all the proceedings before the
Trial Court.
d) The Petitioner shall report to the concerned Police Station every
Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 10:30 AM and should be
released after completing the formalities within an hour.
e) The Petitioner is directed to give all his mobile numbers to the
Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page 17KIRMOLIYA
of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
f) The Petitioner has given his address in the memo of parties as
House No. 16,Gali No. 6, Mustafabad, Delhi. The Petitioner is
directed to continue to reside at the same address. In case there is
any change in the address, the Petitioner is directed to intimate
the same to the IO.
g) The Petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with
evidence or try to influence the witnesses.
h) Violation of any of these conditions will result in the cancellation
of the bail given to the petitioner.
38. It is made clear that the observations made in this Order are only for
the purpose of grant of bail and cannot be taken into consideration during the
trial.
39. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of along with the
pending applications, if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
JANUARY 18, 2022
Rahul
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1518/2021 Page 18KIRMOLIYA
of 18
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH
Signing Date:19.01.2022
12:36
