The Delhi High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Mukta Gupta has denied bail to Sirazuddin in connection with the case concerning murder of one Rahul Solanki, who died after being shot during the North East Delhi riots last year. (Sirazuddin v. State)
The court rejected Sirazuddin's bail plea after opining that he was seen as a part of the mob carrying a danda, as per the video footages available on record.
The Court said, "Considering the fact that at the moment charge is yet to be framed and material witnesses are also required to be examined, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed."
Facts of the case
The FIR was registered under Sections 144 (Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 147 (Punishment for rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 153-A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 295-A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings), 427 (Mischief), 436 (Mischief by fire), 380 (Theft in dwelling house), 302 (Murder), 120-B (Criminal conspiracy) and 34 IPC along with Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act.
Statements of Solanki's brother and cousin were recorded which revealed that Rahul Solanki went to Shiv Vihar with his cousin brother to buy grocery items wherein they saw a mob in a Gali.
It was therefore alleged that one boy out of the rioters having a pistol in his hand came ahead while firing and suddenly shot at the neck of Rahul Solanki. He was declared dead in GTB Hospital.
It was also alleged by the cousin that they saw people having pistols, lathi and dandas in their hand and were pelting stones and petrol bombs while raising slogans.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even if the petitioner is witnessed in the CCTV footage, petitioner does not have any firearm in his possession. It was recovered from the possession of Sonu Saifi who is not seen in the video footage and as per the statement of the alleged eye-witness the firing was done by Mustakeem. The death of the deceased Rahul Solanki was caused due to firing and he had no other injury including an
injury by a danda. Further there is no CCTV footage of the relevant time. Rahul Solanki is not an eye witness and the alleged eye witness Anil Kumar has not named the petitioner.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench after going through the facts and submissions made by the parties noted, "Petitioner is stated to be a member of the said mob. As per the video footages available till 4.15 PM, where after the video was damaged by one of the members of the mob, the petitioner is seen as a part of the mob carrying a danda. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Anil Kumar has not named the petitioner. A perusal of the statement of Rahul reveals that after seeing the video footage, he identified the people present in the mob, out of which petitioner was one of them. Anil Kumar is the cousin brother of the deceased and was not residing with them, and hence did not know the local residents."
The court dismissing the petition remarked, "Considering the fact that at the moment charge is yet to be framed and material witnesses are also required to be examined, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
