Point of Law: Criminal Conspiracy and Murder - Bail dismissed - Conduct and antecedents of petitioner and his propensity to commit crime, I am not inclined to admit petitioner on bail.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

(Via Video-Conferencing)

1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 592/2017, under Sections 302/307/120B/34 IPC & 25/27 of Arms Act registered at P.S. Jafrabad, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 22.10.2017 at about 9:15 PM, Md. Sajid S/o Jalil Ahmed & Sajid S/o Shadik were standing at Braham Puri Road Delhi. Then Wajid & Faiz came there on Scooty. In the meanwhile, Rashid @ Golu, Bada Imran, Mumtaz and their other three associates came there on two motorcycles and chased down Wajid & Faiz. On seeing them, Wajid & Faiz turned back their Scooty. In the meantime one of them fired at Wajid & Faiz and one bullet hit Fiaz as a result of which the Scooty got imbalanced and stopped. Faiz stood there and Wajid started running on Brahampuri Road but above riders chased down Wajid on motorcyccle, then Wajid entered into a house but they also entered in the same house. Rashid @ Golu along with others were present in front of the house with weapon. Then Wajid jumped from the balcony of the house. Meanwhile Rashid @ Golu, & his associates fired several bullets upon him with sophisticated automatic weapon. Thereafter, Faiz was taken to Jag Pravesh Chander Hospital, Shastri Park, Delhi & due to firing Wajid found dead at the spot.

3. Thereafter statement of Sajid S/o Jalil was recorded and on the basis of the statement given by the complainant (Sajid), MLC and circumstances of the events, a case vide FIR No. 592/17, Dt. 23/10/17, u/s 302/307/120B/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act was registered at PS Jafrabad Delhi and the investigation went underway.

4. As per the Status Report filed by the state the present petitioner Irfan @ Channu was formally arrested at Mandoli Jail in the present case on 19.12.2017 on the basis of the disclosure statements given by other accused persons namely Rashid @ Golu, Shahraukh Kureshi, Imran @ Bada Imran, Rashid @ Mumtaz, Rafiq Ali @ Fauzi @ Nashir @ Munna and Rizwan. It is further stated in the Status Report that present petitioner Irfan @ Chhanu played pivotal role in conspiracy with his brother Rizwan & other co-accused and selecting targets to revenge the murder of his gang members. During interrogation accused himself disclosed/confessed about the commission of offence in the present case.

5. I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner/accused, Ld. APP for the State, perused the records of this case and the Status Report filed by the State.

6. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner/accused that the accused/petitioner has been falsely implicated on the charges of conspiracy and the accused/petitioner was not present at the spot and was in custody in another case on 23.10.2017, the date of the incident. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of the fact that he has many criminal cases pending against him. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that co-accused Rizwan has been granted regular bail vide order dated 30.03.2019, co-accused Nadeem @ Imran has been granted bail vide order dated 06.11.2020, co-accused Mumtaz has been granted bail vide order dated 26.11.2020, co-accused Shahbaz and co-accused Rashid have been granted bail vide order dated 08.02.2021.

7. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that as per the charge sheet only allegation against the petitioner is that he was one of the conspirator who has hatched conspiracy in-connivance with other co-accused persons to commit the crime. It is further submitted by him that there is not even an iota of evidence to show that petitioner/accused in any manner connected with the alleged conspiracy. It is further submitted by him that all the material witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel