Delhi Court Rejects Bail Application Of Man Accused Of Murdering Auto-Driver During Delhi Riots

The accused person had argued that his fellow co-accused persons were already released on bail, charge-sheet was filed, investigation was complete and he wasn't required anymore in the matter for custodial interrogation. It was also submitted that the statement of the independent witness and the police constable were infact contradictory to each other, with each claiming a different weapon of attack in the applicant's hand.

However, rejecting the application, the court said that even though it was aware of the fact that other accused in the matter had been released on bail already, this case was different as the accused person had been identified by independent eye-witnesses whereas the ones who were released had not been identified by any eye-witness except the police constable.

The counsel for the applicant had argued that the applicant was a young man merely 28 years of age, the sole bread earner of his family of eight people, including two unmarried sisters, old parents, his wife and a minor daughter of 2 years of age. The counsel submitted that the applicant was falsely accused in the matter, hadn't been specifically named in the FIR and wasn't found in any CCTV footage.

The defendant's counsel had relied on the case of Kamaljit Singh V/s State of Punjab 2005 (4) LRC 384 (SC) to press for bail on the ground of parity as his fellow co-accused had already been granted bail.

The prosecution on the other hand had argued that the matter pertained a brutal murder of a young auto driver, and a video footage regarding the same had been captured by the news network, BBC, and the Investigation Officer was in the process of procuring the same. The public prosecutor also emphasized that since the independent eye witnesses in the matter were residents of the same locality as the accused applicant, there was a possibility of witness-threatening if the accused was released.

The court observed that the regular bail application of the accused, who had been in custody since 30.3.2020 had already been rejected by the same court in a detailed order dated 10.07.2020, and that since then there had been no significant change in circumstances warranting interference in that order. Further, the court also stated that it was drawing an adverse inference against the applicant as he had refused to take part in the judicial "Test Identification Parade" (TIP) taking the specific plea that the witnesses were known to him and reside in his neighbourhood and therefore he wouldn't participate in the identification parade.

Placing heavy reliance on the fact that the eye witnesses in the present case were all residents of the same locality and therefore the possibility of the accused person threatening them, if he was released on bail, "cannot be ruled out", the court rejected the applicant's bail application