The court determined that the completion of investigation in a riot-related case allows for reconsideration of bail, even after previous denials, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence against the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 505, 436, 307, 120B, 34 - Arms Act - Sections 27, 30 - The petitioner, accused in a riot-related FIR, sought bail, asserting innocence and undue implication. Previous bail applications were dismissed due to identification by witnesses and concerns about tampering with evidence. The Court considered completed investigations and similar circumstances in related FIRs and concluded that the petitioner now deserves bail. (Paras 1, 14, and 15)

(B) Bail - The principle of bail focuses on change of circumstances and balancing the rights of the accused against the danger of witness tampering. (Paras 15 and 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.03.2020 for alleged involvement in a riot incident on 25.02.2020, with multiple FIRs pending against him. He was previously granted bail in another FIR stemming from the same event where witness identification was contested.

Findings of Court:
The Court directed the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000 with appropriate surety, emphasizing the necessity for the petitioner to avoid tampering with evidence.

Issues: The key issues were the adequacy of witness identification and the propriety of previous bail denials.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the completion of the investigation and similarities to a prior case warranted a change in bail status, reinforcing that an accused may be entitled to bail when significant progress has been made in the investigation.

Result: Bail granted.

Table of Content
1. request for bail by petitioner with prior histories. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments against the evidence supporting petitioner's guilt. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. prosecution's case establishment through witness statements. (Para 9 , 10)
4. comparison of cases and application of bail principles. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. court's decision on granting bail. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. conclusion of the order and compliance directions. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner is accused in FIR No. 91/2020, registered at police station Dayalpur, Delhi for allegedly committing offences under Sections 147 /148/149/153A/505/436/307/120B/34 IPC and Sections 27 /30 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.

2. The FIR in question is fulcrum of riots which broke out in North East Delhi on 25.02.2020. Pertinently, two more FIRs i.e. FIR No. 88/2020 and FIR No. 92/2020, both registered at police station Dayalpur, Delhi pertaining to the incident of riots on 25.02.2020 are also pending to the credit of petitioner. However, vide order dated 04.02.2021 petitioner has been granted bail in FIR No. 92/2020 [in Bail Appln. 3864/2021] by this Court, whereas in FIR No. 88/2020, he has been granted bail by the Court of Sessions vide order dated 30.05.2020.

3. In the present FIR, petitioner had earlier approached this Court for bail and the same was dismissed by passing a detailed order on 24.09.2020 [Bail Appln. 2664/2020]. Petitioner's second bail application [Bail Appln. 3570/2020] was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2020. Thereafter, his third bail application [Bail Appln. 652/2021] was not pressed by him while seeking liberty to approach the learned trial court for the relief claimed. However, his bail application has been dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 12.03.2021 [in SC No.70/2021] rejecting his claim of parity in FIR No. 92/2020, registered at police station Dayalpur, Delhi wherein he has been granted bail by this Court, while holding "that there is no independent eye witness identification of applicant in case in FIR No. 92/2020, whereas in the present case, besides being identified by injured Ajay, he has also been categorically identified by public witnesses PW Harish Chander and PW Prashant Kumar." The learned trial court has further held as under:

"19. In view of the categorial dismissal of regular bail application(s) of applicant thrice, once by this Court vide order dated 24.08.2020 and thereafter twice by the Hon'ble High Court vide order(s) dated 24.09.2020 and 23.11.2020; I do not find any change in circumstance(s) since the dismissal of last bail application of applicant by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. I further do not find any merit in the claim of applicant seeking bail on the ground of parity. As such, considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled for bail in the matter at this stage. The bail application is accordingly dismissed."

4. Hence, petitioner is before this Court to claim relief of bail.

5. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document