HC: At the time of considering bail application, this Court is not required to dwell upon minute details on the merits of the case but has to form a prima facie opinion [Read  Judgment]

The High Court of Delhi recently comprising of a bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed that at the time of considering bail application, this Court is not required to dwell upon minute details on the merits of the case but has to form a prima facie opinion. (Tanveer Malik vs State)

Facts of the case

The petitioner is accused in FIR for allegedly committing offences under section 147/148/149/153A/505/436/307/120B/34 IPC and Sections 27/30 of Arms Act. He is in judicial custody since 12.03.2020 in this case and by this petition, he is seeking bail while claiming to be innocent and of having been falsely implicated in this case.

Contention of the Parties

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the technical evidence relied upon by the prosecution i.e. the call detail record and CCTV footage does not in any way establish presence of petitioner at the spot, as on the day of incident petitioner was not in Delhi. Learned counsel submitted that out of 11 CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution, he cannot be seen in any of them and the phone location chart also does not show petitioner's presence at the spot. Further submitted that there are six accused persons in this FIR case, however, petitioner has no concern with them and his phone location is different from that of other accused persons.

Next submitted that Constable Sodan and Constable Pawan in their statements have stated that there was a mob of 1000 to 1200 people on the day of incident and so, their claim of having identified the petitioner amongst a huge crowd of mob cannot be  accepted.

Learned counsel also submitted that as per the supplementary statement of injured recorded on 20.05.2020, he has identified the petitioner after seeing the photographs, whereas after seeing the black and white dozier of petitioner, he cannot be recognized. It was submitted that petitioner had surrendered himself on 12.03.2020 in FIR No. 88/2020, registered at police station Sunlight Colony, Delhi and in the police station many of his photographs were taken, and thereafter, he has been falsely implicated in the present FIR case.

It was submitted that recording of injured's  supplementary statement is nothing but an attempt to fill in the lacuna by the prosecution.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor for State contended that the petitioner has been found promoting enmity and disharmony by rioting and charge sheet, in this case, has already been filed and trial is in progress and if released on bail, he may threaten or manipulate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and hence, this petition be rejected.

Courts Observation and Judgment

The Court after analysing the contentions of both the parties and settled position of law in the case opined, “petitioner’s earlier bail applications in the present FIR case have been rejected by this Court, but the said orders were passed at the time when investigation was in progress and role of petitioner was yet to be established. Now, investigation is complete and charge sheet qua petitioner and other accused persons has already been filed and trial shall take substantial time. At the time of considering bail application, this Court is not required to dwell upon minute details on the merits of the case but has to form a prima facie opinion. Keeping in mind that the facts of the present case are similar to that of previous FIR, registered at police station Dayalpur, Delhi and that the questions raised in the said case and the present case are more or less similar and shall be answered during trial, I have no hesitation to hold that petitioner now deserves concession of bail in the present case as well”.

The court accepting the bail application remarked, "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.

The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influence any witness or tamper with the evidence and shall appear before the court as and when directed.

With aforesaid directions, the present petition is allowed and accordingly disposed of, while  making it clear that any observation made herein shall not influence trial of the prosecution case."

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :