The delay in trial commencement and the similarity of the petitioner's case to a co-accused who was granted bail were key factors in granting bail.

Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Procedure - The court granted bail to the petitioner, who was in custody for offenses related to rioting and possession of weapons, considering the delay in trial commencement and the similarity of the case to a co-accused who was granted bail earlier.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought bail after being in custody for offenses related to rioting and possession of weapons. The trial had not commenced, and the petitioner's case was similar to a co-accused who was granted bail earlier.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that due to the substantial time expected for the trial to commence and conclude, and the similarity of the petitioner's case to a co-accused who was granted bail, the petitioner was granted bail.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's custody, delay in trial commencement, and the similarity of the case to a co-accused who was granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the delay in trial commencement and the similarity of the petitioner's case to a co-accused who was granted bail as key factors in granting bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petitioner was granted bail on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and surety, with a directive not to tamper with evidence or engage in activities likely to result in a breach of peace.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail in FIR No.87/2020 dated 25.02.2020 registered at Police Station New Usman Pur, Delhi for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 427 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

2. A perusal of the FIR shows that an information was received on 25.02.2020 that persons belonging to Muslim community have gathered in the area and are indulging in rioting and a few of them are armed with weapons and are resorting to firing, throwing stones and are demonstrating. On receiving the information the Police reached the spot and injured persons were taken to the hospital for treatment. Eyewitnesses were traced and FIR No.87/2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 427 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 02.05.2020.

3. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court seeking bail but the same was rejected by an order dated 26.08.2020. Co-accused, Mohd. Naim, was granted bail by this Court on 18.09.2020. Claiming parity with the case of Mohd. Naim the petitioner once again approached the Sessions Court by moving a bail application but the same was dismissed by order dated 20.10.2020. Hence the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant bail application.

4. This court issued notice on 14.01.2021 and directed the State to file the Status Report. The Status Report has been filed. The Status Report shows that the entire incident was captured on a CCTV camera and on the basis of the CCTV footage the petitioner was arrested. The Status Report states that the petitioner was identified by the victim Bhave Gautam and Constable Anuj. The Status Report states that the petitioner was having a danda in his hand at the time of the incident. It is stated in the status report that the danda has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The charge sheet has been filed on 09.06.2020.

5. Heard Mr. F.A. Banisrael, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Saleem Ahmed, leaned SPP appearing for the State.

6. Mr. F.A. Banisrael, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2020, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has not even begun. He further states that the petitioner's case is identical to that of Mohd. Naim, who has been granted bail by this Court in BAIL APPLN. No.2732/2020. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of Mohd. Naim, he was seen having a stone in his hand and in the present case the petitioner had a danda in his hand.

7. On the other hand Mr. Salim Ahmed, learned SPP for the State states that if the petitioner is granted bail he would get involved in the same kind of crime and disrupt peace and tranquility and help the co-accused persons in absconding. He would contend that the petitioner has actively participated in a riot by being a member of an unlawful assembly. It is contended that if the petitioner is granted bail at this stage it would send an adverse message to the society.

8. The petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2020. Charge-sheet has been filed. There is no likelihood of the trial commencing and concluding in the near future. In fact investigation regarding a few accused is going on and a few accused are absconding. The petitioner's case is similar to the case of Mohd. Naim, in that case Mohd. Naim was having a stone in his hand and in the present case the petitioner was having a danda. The trial in this case will take substantial time. It is also not disputed that there have been cross FIRs.

9. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2020 and that the trial of the case will take substantial time, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be release

Click Here to Read the rest of this document