SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SHRI ARUN KUMAR @ ARUN KUMAR MALIK – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-2312/2021



BAIL APPLN. 2312/2021

Page 1 of 17

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 01st FEBRUARY, 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

+

BAIL APPLN. 2312/2021

SHRI ARUN KUMAR @ ARUN KUMAR MALIK ..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Advocate

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through

Mr. Amit Prasad, SPP for the State

with Mr. Ayodhya Prasad, Advocate

and SI Santosh Gupta, Crime Branch

Mr. Mehmood Pracha , Advocate

with Mr.Sanawar Choudhary and Mr.

Jatin

Bhatt,

Advocates

for

the

complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1.

The petitioner seeks bail in FIR No. 70/2020 dated 27.02.2020

registered at PS Bhajanpura for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,

307, 396, 436, 455, 201, 188, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

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 on

25.02.2020, around 11:00 AM., the complainant had gone to purchase milk

from a nearby shop when he received a call from his son Asif informing him

that a huge crowd of around 100 people had gathered near their house in

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000372

BAIL APPLN. 2312/2021

Page 2 of 17

support of NRC and CAA. The crowd was chanting slogans of “Jai Shree

Ram”. The crowd later entered their house after breaking open the locks, and

set it on fire. It is stated that the complainant’s family members and

employees rushed to the top floor of the house. The complainant’s family

members and workers were safely rescued from the roof of his residence,

which was made possible by the rescue operation launched by the police in

support with the locals of the vicinity.

4.

It is stated that the complainant’s mother, Smt. Akbari, who was 85

years old could not reach the rooftop due to her age. After extinguishing the

fire, her body was found lying on a folding bed and was recovered from the

second floor. She was taken to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, where she was

declared brought dead vide MLC No. D-45. A Post Mortem was conducted

at GTB Hospital itself and vide PM Report No. 345/2020 dated 28.02.2020,

the cause of death was opined as Asphyxia as a result of an ante-mortem

inhalation of smoke. It is further stated that the crowd looted Rs. 8,00,000 in

cash and a box containing gold and silver jewellery and other valuable

articles from their residence

5.

The investigation of the said case was transferred from North East to

Special Investigation Team-II, Crime Branch, Delhi and subsequently to

Special Investigation Unit-I, Crime Branch, Delhi vide order No. 8266-

74/AC-III/C&T/PHQ dated 27.02.2020 and No. 216/S)/DCP/Crime (SIU &

ISC) dated 04.03.2020.Theinvestigation was undertaken by Insp. Pankaj

Arora.

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2020 and has been in custody

since then. The chargesheet was filed on 07.06.2020 and on 06.04.2021, the

charges were framed by the Trial Court.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000372

BAIL APPLN. 2312/2021

Page 3 of 17

7.

The petitioner had filed Bail Application No. 399/2020 before the

Court of Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2020.

Thereafter, another bail application vide IA No. 04/2021 in SC No. 17/2021

was filed before the Court of Sessions Judge which was subsequently

dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2021.

8.

Mr. Ashwin Vaish, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter and that

there exists no evidence which can prove the connection of the Petitioner to

the incident beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the FIR was

registered on 27.02.2020, that is, two days after the incident occurred and

the name of the accused is nowhere mentioned therein. He further submitted

that the statements of the eye witness

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top