Bail applications for serious offenses can be denied to prevent witness tampering, balancing individual liberty against public safety.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. BAIL APPLN. 1459/2021 has been filed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 159/2020 dated 21.03.2020 registered at Police Station Dayalpur for offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 IPC.

2. The FIR herein states that information had been received that FIR No.77/2020 dated 26.02.2020 was registered at Police Station Dayalpur for offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 IPC as per which the bodies of four persons, namely, Zakir, Mehtaab, Ashfaaq Husain, Jameel were recovered during the riots which had taken place in North East Delhi in February 2020.

3. It is stated that during investigation, the bodies of the four deceased were identified and it appears that the time and place of their deaths were different. Accordingly, four different cases were registered. FIR No.159/2020 was registered on 21.03.2020 with respect to the death of Ashfaaq Hussain. It is stated that the brother of the deceased had been informed by one Zulfikar Siddiqui that his brother had been taken to a hospital near Shiv Vihar Tiraha. It is stated that the brother of the deceased was not aware of the people who brought the deceased to the hospital. It is stated that the brother of the deceased was informed that his brother had been admitted at Al-Hind Hospital. It is stated that the brother of the brother of the deceased was instructed to take the deceased to another hospital but no vehicles were available. It is stated that the deceased was taken to GTB Hospital where he was declared as dead.

4. Chargesheet has been filed in FIR No. 159/2021 for offences under Section 144,147, 148, 149, 188, 302, 120B and 34 IPC and the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.04.2020.

5. Bail applications with respect to the FIR herein, along with FIR No. 158/2020 and FIR No. 163/2020 had been dismissed vide a common order dated 22.04.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, Karkardooma Court, on the ground that offences levelled against the Petitioner herein are serious in nature and that one cannot rule out a possibility of the Petitioner threatening or intimidating the sole public witness who resides within the same locality. Consequently, the Petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking regular bail.

6. Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is a youngster of 23 years and owns a shop. He states that the Petitioner herein, vide Order dated 09.12.2020 passed by the learned Trial Court, had been granted interim bail and had not misused the liberty. He argues that this Court in BAIL APPLN.969/2021 in FIR No.87/2020 granted bail to the Petitioner therein on the ground that the statement of eyewitness/Shashikant Kashyap could not be said to be wholly reliable as he was a resident of Gali No. 8 and could not have seen what had taken place in Gali No. 3 which was 350 metres away.

7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate how this Court found the veracity of the statement of the eyewitness doubtful. He further states that the authenticity of the statement should be delved into during the course of trial and not at this juncture. Mr. Aggarwal also brings into question how the prosecution has solely relied upon CCTV footage that showcases the Petitioner herein walking with an iron danda/palta and that no other video footage has been brought on record that reveals that the Petitioner used the same for inflict