JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks regular bail in FIR No. 75/2020 dated 28th February, 2020 under Sections 302/149/147/148/436/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

registered at Police Station Dayalpur.

2. The present FIR has emerged out of riots and communal disharmony, which took place in certain parts of the North-East Delhi in the month of February, 2020 which resulted in the death of an innocent bystander.

3. The case set up by the prosecution is as under:-

I. An information was received at Police Station Dayalpur from GTB Hospital at 11:15 P.M. on 24th February, 2020 that one Rahul Solanki (hereinafter the deceased/victim) had received a gunshot injury at Shiv Vihar and was declared dead by the concerned doctor.

II. On 25th February, 2020, the post-mortem was conducted and body of the deceased was handed over to his father, Hari Singh Solanki and the deceased’s brother, Rohit Solanki. The statements, under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) of Hari Singh Solanki and Rohit Solanki were recorded on 26th February, 2020. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered.

III. The investigation was initially conducted by the police officials of Police Station Dayalpur. Thereafter, on 7th March, 2020 the investigation was handed over to SIT, Crime Branch for further investigation.

IV. During the course of the investigation, the place of incident was visited and local enquiry was made. It revealed that on the date of the incident, the deceased along with his cousin, Anil Kumar, had gone to purchase some grocery items in Pal Dairy Wali Gali when they noticed the presence of a large number of rioters present in the gali with rods, stones, pistols, etc. In this commotion, the applicant herein fired upon Rahul Solanki, causing his death.

V. ThestatementunderSection161oftheCr.P.C.ofAnilKumar, an eye-

witness to the death-causing incident, was taken on 8th March, 2020.

VI. The applicant was not named in the initial FIR. He was arrested based on the information given by an informer pursuant to a reward by the investigating agency.The informer identified the applicant on the basis of the applicant’s photograph. The applicant was arrayed as an accused vide Supplementary Chargesheet filed on 1st December, 2020.

VII. Videorderdated6thMarch,2023,chargeshavebeenframedagainstthe applicant under Sections 147/148/153A/380/427/436/450/302 read withSections149/188oftheIPCandunderSections25/27oftheArms Act, 1959.

4. The bail applications of the applicant were dismissed by the learned Sessions Court vide orders dated 30th June, 2021 and 11th May, 2023.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has made the following submissions: -

i. The applicant was neither named in the original FIR nor chargesheeted in the main Chargesheet. He was arrayed as an accused only vide a Supplementary Chargesheet dated 1st December, 2020, filed after a period of more than 9 months from the date of registration of FIR.

ii. The applicant was identified by the witness Anil Kumar only based on the 10-second mobile phone video clip along with screen grabs. It is submitted that the statements of the said witness dated 8th March, 2020 and 2nd April, 2020 have been recorded in a belated manner, have materialcontradictionsandthelaterstatementisanimprovementtothe earlier one.

iii. The applicant was identified on the basis of photographs/screen grabs of the aforementioned video clip, however as per the FSL Report dated 14th February, 2023, the figure of the applicant has not matched with the figure shown in the photograph.

iv. The gun and bullets recovered from the applicant could not be matched with the bullet recovered from the victim’s body as per the FSL Report dated 17th September, 2021.

v. The applicant refused to join the judicial TIP proceedings as his photograph was taken by the Investigating Officer (IO) and shown to the witnesses, hence compromising the authenticity of the procedure.

vi. CDR location cannot be a determinati