SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Banadik - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2211 OF 2022 & CR.M.AS. 34090 OF 2023 & 34091 OF 2023
Decided On : 28-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Manendra Mishra & Mr.Vikrant Pratap Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 2211/2022 & CR.M.AS. 34090/2023 & 34091/2023.
Mr.Aman Usman, APP. Insp. Gurnam Singh in BAIL APPLN. 2211/2022 & CR.M.AS. 34090/2023 & 34091/2023 & BAIL APPLN. 621/2023.
Mr. M.L. Yadav & Mr.Harish Chand, Advocates, for the Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 621/2023.

IMPORTANT POINT
The right to liberty and the need for evidence to establish a connection to the crime are crucial factors in determining bail applications.

Headnote:

Bail Applications - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 439, 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25, 27, 54, 59

Fact of the Case:

The prosecution alleged that the applicants were involved in a conspiracy to kill a person, resulting in the death of two innocent passersby. The prosecution relied on call records, witness statements, and alleged connections between the accused to establish the conspiracy.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicants were not seen in the CCTV footage of the incident, and there were discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the importance of the right to liberty and granted bail to the applicants.

Issues: Presence of the accused at the scene, relevance of call records as evidence, and the right to liberty of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of evidence connecting the applicants to the crime, the potential misuse of liberty, and the right to bail as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Final Decision: The applicants were granted bail with specific conditions to ensure their appearance and prevent misuse of liberty.

JUDGMENT

1. These Bail Applications have been filed by the Applicant(s) under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying for the Applicant(s) to be released on Bail in FIR No. 191/2021 registered at Police Station: Bara Hindu Rao, North, Delhi, originally under Sections 302/307/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, `IPC') and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short, `Arms Act').

Brief Facts

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.07.2021, at about 9:15 PM, a group of persons stopped the car of the complainant, namely, Naeem Ahemad, and started quarrelling with him and his nephew, Muneeb. However, they were over powered by the complainant with the help of the passersby, and they managed to get away. After a few minutes, the attackers returned and fired gunshots, resulting in bullet injuries to two innocent passersby in the crowd. Both the injured were taken to the hospital where they were declared as brought dead.

3. The prosecution further alleges that during the investigation, it was found that there were disputes between Mohd. Muneeb and accused Danish, who is the applicant in Bail Appln. 621/2023, and Firojuddin, a co-accused. Mohd. Muneeb had earlier also made a complaint against the construction raised by the applicant-Mohd. Danish and Firojuddin, and also filed a petition before this Court alleging unauthorized construction being carried out by them. The prosecution alleges that the accused, Firojuddin, in conspiracy with his father-in-law-Mehtabuddin, and Mohd. Danish, called Mohd. Muneeb on his mobile and threatened him to settle the matter, otherwise, to face the dire consequences. However, as the matter was not resolved, Firojuddin, who was in touch with the co-accused Ravi Sharma and Shoaib through one Anwar @ Hathela, who is alleged to be running a racket from Tihar Jail, along with the other co-accused, assembled near the Masjid in front of Kishan Ganj Railway Station, and conspired to kill Mohd. Muneeb. Accused Firojuddin and Mohd. Danish, along with hired criminals, that is, co-accused Ravi Sharma, Rahul @ Charlie, Himanshu @ Rohan, Shoaib, Sharafat, Banadik @ Sunny/applicant in Bail Appln. 2211/2022, and Satender, assembled near the Masjid in front of Kishan Ganj Railway Station, consumed alcohol, and, thereafter, as per the plan, Rahul @ Charlie went to Sanjita Hospital to identify Muneeb. After identification, Rahul @ Charlie stopped the car of Muneeb, and along with Himanshu @ Rohan, Ravi Sharma, Shoaib, Satender, Banadik @ Sunny/the applicant herein, and Sharafat, attacked on Mohd. Muneeb, while Firojuddin and Danish were standing near the place of the incident. Rahul @ Charlie fired upon Mohd. Muneeb with an intention to kill him, however, two passersby died due to the bullet injuries. Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from the spot.

4. The prosecution alleges that a pistol and two live cartridges were later recovered from the possession of accused Banadik @ Sunny/the applicant herein. A mobile phone was also seized.

5. The prosecution alleges that during the investigation, it was found that Banadik @ Sunny has made 158 calls with the co-accused Satender during the period 05.06.2021 to 08.07.2021; with Shoaib around 66 calls from 11.06.2021; and with co-accused Sharafat 2 (two) calls from 09.07.2021. It is alleged that this also shows conspiracy amongst the co-accused.

6. It is further alleged that there is a voice message between Sohaib and Firojuddin. The ballistic report with respect to the weapon recovered from Rahul @ Charlie has been received as positive.

7. Based on the above, charge-sheet has also been filed.

Submissions by the learned counsels for the applicants

8. The learned counsels for the applicants submit that though the entire case of the prosecution is based on an allegation that Mohd. Danish had an enmity with Muneeb and was present at the spot, none of the eyewitnesses have depo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top