The court reaffirmed that bail may be denied based on the severity of charges, potential for witness tampering, and substantial evidence of violent intent against law enforcement officers.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, Sections 186, 353, 307, 147, 148, 149, 379 - Petition for regular bail - Arrest for alleged involvement in violent attack on police post, carrying illegal firearms, and disturbing public order - Police complainant sustained severe injuries - The petitioner asserts he was falsely implicated while attempting to lodge an FIR against complainants - CCTV evidence presented indicating petitioner brandishing a weapon - Defense claims evidence of a face mask instead - Previous criminal history noted - Plea for bail denied due to the severity of the allegations, risk of tampering with evidence, and inability to establish lack of violent intent. (Paras 1, 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of involvement in attacking a police post and firing at police officers. The arrest occurred after the incident when the police were called to handle a dispute. The police claim the petitioner fired shots while the petitioner states he was falsely accused following attempts to file a complaint against another individual.

Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence against the petitioner substantial, including CCTV footage and prior criminal history.

Issues: The key issues included the reliability of the CCTV evidence, the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, and whether bail should be granted in light of his involvement in a violent incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the severity of the offenses alleged, particularly against public servants, the potential for intimidating witnesses, and contrasting the petitioner’s claims against presented evidence.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of the case and circumstances leading to arrest. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding evidence and the credibility of accounts. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's observations on police action and defendant's history. (Para 7 , 8)
4. court's reasoning against granting bail based on severity. (Para 9)
5. final dismissal of the bail application. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 210/2020 under Section 186/353/307/147/148/149/379/34 IPC, registered with PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.

2. It has been submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 13.06.2020 in a false and fabricated case registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla, where he had gone to lodge an FIR against the complainant of this case and his associates.

3. The brief facts are that on 10.06.2020 at about 8:30 PM SI Pankaj Thakran/complainant was present in Police Post Inderlok when one person, namely, Kale met him in the said Police Post and made complaint against Mohsin, Salman, Naved etc., about the loot in his shop and Kale being beaten up by these persons. One Sadeqin was brought to the Police Post, where SI Pankaj Thakran made some formal enquiry and in the meantime, Mohsin, Naved etc., reached the Police Post and they started shouting in abusive language; SI Pankaj Thakran tried to calm them but all in vain.

3.1. The present petitioner was stated to be having pistol in his hand and others were armed with Lathi/Dande. These persons were pushed out by SI Pankaj Thakran alongwith the help of other police officials but they again came back and started pelting stones at Police Post and SI Pankaj Thakran was hit by one stone and then SI Pankaj Thakran fired with his government pistol and during that period applicant also fired from his pistol. Thereafter SI Pankaj Thakran took out an AK-47 rifle lying in his office and seeing this, all accused persons fled away from there and at that time another shot was fired. SI Pankaj Thakran was admitted to hospital.

3.2. On 11.06.2020 the present FIR was registered on the statement of SI Pankaj Thakran. The present accused was arrested on 13.06.2020 and since then he is behind the bars. The charge-sheet has been filed. The bail application moved by the petitioner was dismissed on 04.08.2021 by learned ASJ and feeling aggrieved, he has preferred the present application on the ground that he is a peace loving and law-abiding citizen of India, young in age, deeply rooted in the society and being in custody since 13.06.2020.

4. It has been submitted that on 10.06.2020 a quarrel had taken place between the Sadeqin, uncle of the applicant, and one Akhlaq, who was tenant of applicant's grandmother. Sadeqin made efforts to pacify the matter but all in vain. Calls were made on number 100 and after about an hour police officials came from Choki and took Sadeqin and Ahklaq to the police post, Inderlok where some drinks party was already going on. Without knowing the truth, SI Pankar Thakran started misbehaving and he gave beatings to all of them and on seeing this behaviour of the police, Sadeqin and Ahklaq and other people ran away from there and on this SI Pankaj Thakran fired from his pistol two times and one bullet hit the present applicant Naved in his hand and later on police officials falsely implicated the present petitioner, his family members and relatives in this false and fabricated case to save themselves from the clutches of the law.

5. During arguments, learned APP had relied upon the CCTV footage of Police Post Inderlok stating that the present applicant was seen taking out pistol from his pocket and moving inside the police post. The case of the applicant is that he as holding a black colour mask in his hand and it was not pistol.

5.1. The FSL report relied upon by the prosecution of the analysis of the CCTV Footage shows that the applicant was holding a pistol like object, whereas the same CCTV footage whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document