Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Mohd. Danish - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT Of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail.Appln.3550/2020
Decided On : 16-02-2021
BAIL - Communal Riots - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - 186/353/332/323/109/144/147/148/149/153A/188/333/336/427/307/308/397/412/302/201/120-B/34 IPC, Sections 3 & 4 PDPP Act, 25/27 Arms Act - Section 162(1) Cr.P.C. - Section 161 Cr.P.C. - Sections 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act - Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act - Article 20(3) of Constitution of India - Section 149 IPC - Bail granted based on lack of evidence and violation of legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cab driver, was arrested for his alleged involvement in communal riots in Delhi. The petitioner claimed innocence and argued that the evidence against him was fabricated and inadmissible. The prosecution alleged the petitioner's active participation in the riots, causing the death of a police officer and injuring several others.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence against the petitioner was insufficient and violated legal provisions. The court granted bail, noting that the charge-sheet had been filed, the petitioner was no longer required for investigation, and the trial would take substantial time.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of evidence, the petitioner's alleged involvement in the riots, and the sufficiency of the evidence to justify continued detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged crimes, the violation of legal provisions related to statements to police, and the absence of incriminating evidence such as CCTV footage or witness statements.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner, requiring a personal bond and surety, and instructed the petitioner not to influence prosecution witnesses during trial. The court emphasized that the Trial Court should not be influenced by its observations.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The hearing of the case was conducted through video conferencing.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No.60/2020, for the offences punishable under Section 186/353/332/323/109/144/147/148/149/153A/188/333/336/427/307/308/397/412/302/201/120-B/34 IPC read with Sections 3 & 4 PDPP Act and 25/27 Arms Act, registered at PS Dayal Pur, North East District, Delhi.
2. It is stated in the present petition that the petitioner is a Cab Driver by Profession and he is currently working with HCL Gurgaon on contractual basis. Petitioner used to be on night duty from evening till morning. He was attached with HCL through one vendor, namely, Ravi Tour and Travels for past six months.
3. Case of the petitioner is that one maternal aunt, one elder sister and maternal uncle of the petitioner reside in the Chandbagh area. The said maternal aunt is mother-in-law of the elder sister of the petitioner residing currently at C-89, Street No.1, Moonga Nagar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-110094 while the maternal cousin named Ikram of the petitioner resides at Street No.3, Karawal Nagar Road, Chandbagh. On 23rd February, 2020, petitioner along with his cousin Ashu decided to leave for Chandbagh to pay a visit to the relatives. On said day, things were as usual calm and normal. It was only on 24th February that things started worsening up. Late mother (she was alive on that day) of the petitioner called and asked the petitioner to stay at maternal aunt's/elder sister's place till the things get normal and return home at Loni thereafter. On 25th February around 6:00 am in the morning, petitioner returned to his residence where his parents were residing, i.e. H. No. 110, Gali No.3, Rabbani Masjid, Prem Nagar, Loni Ghaziabad, UP. However, on 10.03.2020 that petitioner got a call from one lady customer asking for petitioner's cab on monthly basis. Accordingly, petitioner left his residence at Loni to reach at the customer's location on 10.03.2020 and while petitioner was en-route, that he was confronted by Nandnagri Police Personnel. He was brought to Nandnagri Police Station and thereafter, he was taken to Crime Branch, Lodhi Road. Petitioner was arrested while being at work.
4. Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of petitioner and submitted that there is no recovery from the petitioner which could connect him with the alleged charges in the present FIR. Alleged statement by the petitioner herein is false, fabricated and illegal. It is factually incorrect that petitioner deposed any information to the Police officials. He is educated only till class X. He was made to sign some plain papers which later found out to be disclosure statements attributed to him.
5. Further submitted that as per Section 162(1) Cr.P.C., no statement that has been given to the police official be signed by the person making it.
"162. Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence.
(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose."
6. Therefore, the alleged disclosure statement suffers from gross illegality and it is in the teeth of Section 162(1) Cr.P.C. and cannot be relied upon at this juncture. Moreover, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. given to the police officials is not the substantive piece of evidence as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court speaking through Hon'ble Justice GP Mathur in case of Rajendra Singh vs State of UP (2007) 7 SCC 378:
"...7. ...A statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence. In view of the proviso to sub-sect
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for admissible evidence and compliance with legal provisions in justifying continued detention and granting bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence to support allegations and the consideration of the time required for trial in granting bail.
Theory of close-range shot is just a conjecture of the investigating agency and is not based on scientific fact.Simply because copper like pieces were found near the exit wound of the body, as per th....
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 legisla....
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 legisla....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of evidence, pending charges, and the expected trial duration in the decision to grant bail.
The court established that in the absence of credible evidence linking the accused to the crime scene, bail should be granted, especially when trial proceedings are expected to be lengthy.
Point of Law : Grant of Bail - Petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time, and that veracity of allegations levelled against him can be tested during trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the alleged incident and the prolonged ....
The court emphasized the need to balance personal liberty with the enforcement of criminal law and the duty to ensure that the law does not become a tool for targeted harassment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
