HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MOHD SHOAIB @ CHHUTWA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-2359/2021
BAIL APPLN. 2359/2021
Page 1 of 18
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th JANUARY, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+
BAIL APPLN. 2359/2021
MOHD. SHOAIB @ CHUTWA
..... Petitioner
Through
Mr. Salim Malik, Mr. Abdul Kadir,
Ms. Shavana, Mr. Sharukh and Mr.
Shamsad Khan, Mr. Bhim Kishore,
Advocates.
versus
STATE
..... Respondent
Through
Mr. Amit Mahajan, SPP with Mr.
Rajat Nair, SPP with Mr. Dhruv
Pande and Mr. Shantnu Sharma,
Advoctes with SI Surender Kumar,
PS Crime Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1.
The Petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.39/2020 dated 28.02.2020
registered
at
P.S.
Gokul
Puri
for
offences
under
Sections
147/148/149/302/436/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter,
“IPC”).
2.
The FIR relates to the violence that took place in the National Capital
Territory of Delhi in the month of February 2020.
3.
The brief facts leading to the instant Bail Application are that a protest
against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter, “CAA”) had
been taking place, and in relation to this, the Complainant (ASI Gajraj
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000213
BAIL APPLN. 2359/2021
Page 2 of 18
Singh) received a PCR call vide DD No. 17A on 26.02.2020 that some
rioters were pelting stones on Street No.1, near Kabir Builder, Bhagirathi
Vihar. As per the FIR, the Complainant rushed to Bhagirathi Vihar where he
was informed by a Beat Constable who in turn was informed by some
people that the house of owner of Anil Sweets, which was located in
Chaman Park, Main Brijpuri Road, had been set ablaze by rioters.
4.
The FIR states that when the Complainant and the Beat Constable
reached the said house, they found the door to be broken and house to be
completely burnt. On inspecting the second floor, the Complainant noticed a
semi-burnt body lying in the corner. The FIR further states that the deceased
seemed to be about 20 years old, and that both the arms and legs of the body
were chopped off. It is stated that the chopped limbs could not be found, and
that on inquiry, it was found that the burnt body belonged to a person named
Dilbar who was a waiter at the sweet house. The body was then sent to GTB
Hospital and then to the GTB Hospital mortuary. The FIR states that it
appears that unknown persons belonging to one of the parties opposing and
supporting the CAA killed the deceased with a deadly weapon and then set
the house ablaze with the intent to destroy the evidence of the crime.
5.
It is stated that investigation is now complete and chargesheet has
been filed against the Petitioner on 04.06.2020 wherein the Petitioner has
been added. The chargesheet states that there is sufficient material to
proceed
against
the
Petitioner
herein
under
Sections
144/147/148/149/188/153A/302/201/427/436/120-B/34 of the IPC. A
supplementary chargesheet has also been filed on 07.07.2020.
6.
Mr. Salim Malik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted
that the investigation is tainted and the Petitioner is an innocent person who
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000213
BAIL APPLN. 2359/2021
Page 3 of 18
has been falsely implicated in the matter herein. He has submitted that DD
No. 17A was not included anywhere in the chargesheet.
7.
Mr. Malik has submitted that there is no clinching evidence against
the Petitioner and that even the initial statement of the eyewitness Himanshu
did not factor in the presence of the Petitioner herein. The learned Counsel
for the Petitioner has submitted that merely the statement of the eyewitness
cannot be relied upon to prolong the incarceration of the Petitioner. He has
further argued that the CDR which allegedly places the Petitioner in the
vicinity of the SOC is not conclusive as the Petitioner stays in that locality
and, therefore, it is inevitable that all the accused persons would