Eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence are sufficient to deny bail in serious criminal cases involving murder amidst communal violence.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. By these petitions, the petitioners seek regular bail in case FIR No.103/2020 under Sections 147 /148/149/302/201/120B IPC registered at PS Gokulpuri, Delhi.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauzi contends that there are material contradictions in the statements of the alleged eye witnesses namely Narottam Singh, Mohit Sharma, Shivam Bhardwaj, Aman Saxena and Nisar Ahmed. The petitioner was first arrested in FIR No.41/2020 wherein there were no allegations under Section 302 IPC however, thereafter the petitioner has been implicated in 14 different FIRs including for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The dead body stated to be of Aamin has not been identified. As per the post-mortem report the dead body was of a Hindu male. When the dead body was recovered it was in a highly decomposed condition and thus could not have been identified by anybody. Even the father of the deceased stated that he identified the body from the clothes worn by the deceased. The location of the petitioner based on the call detail records does not show that the petitioner was present at the place of incident. The location of the petitioner at the relevant time is near his residence. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. There is no CCTV footage which shows the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. There is gross delay in recording of the statements of the witnesses and hence manipulation therein cannot be ruled out.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Rishabh Chaudhary @ Tapas contends that after the instances of commission of violence and riots nine bodies of persons from Muslim community were found on different dates in Bhagirathi Nala and in the nine FIRs registered for the said murders, eleven common accused including the present petitioners have been implicated based on the general allegations and statements of the same witnesses. The said FIRs were registered on the basis of the applicant and other co-accused being members of a whatsapp group named `Kattar Hindu Ekta.' The petitioner has never been a member of the whatsapp group `Kattar Hindu Ekta' and there is no recovery from the petitioner or pursuant to his disclosure statement. The location of the petitioner based on his call detail records would show that the petitioner was at his residence and not at the Nala, that is, the place of incident which is under different cell towers. The petitioner has not been subjected to any test identification parade. Statements of the alleged eye witnesses are manipulated, vague and general in nature. The charge-sheet does not disclose as to how the police got to know that the dead body was of Aamin and how they reached his parents. There is a considerable delay of two months in recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Even as per the eye witness Aman Saxena, whose statement has been heavily relied upon by the learned Trial Court to reject the bail of the petitioner, the deceased was aged 15 to 16 years whereas as per the post-mortem report the deceased was approximately 25 years old. The petitioner is a young boy aged 21years with clean antecedents and has been falsely implicated.

4. Case of the prosecution against the petitioners is that on 1st March, 2020 on receipt of DD No.7A at PS Gokulpuri, the Investigating Officer reached the nala at C-Block, Bhagirathi Vihar, behind Ganga Vihar Shamshan Ghat and one male dead body was found lying in the nala. The body was taken out and it was found to be of a male aged 15 years, height 5' 5" and there were injury marks on the backside of the head. The dead body was in decomposed position and was thus shifted to RML Hospi