Delhi Riots- CDR location Does Not Establish His Presence At The Incident Site: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Auto Rickshaw Driver

The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed that being an Auto Rickshaw Driver, the Petitioner is not a flight risk and there is no opportunity to temper with the evidence.

The matter before the Court

The Court was dealing with a regular bail application filed by the for grantof bail in case FIR No.39/2020, for the offences punishable under Sections, 147/148/149/302/201/436/427/120-B/34 IPC, registered at PS Gokul Puri, Delhi.

Facts in brief

As per the prosecution's case, on 26^th February 2020 at 01.04 PM, a PCR call regarding stone pelting near Kabir Builder, Gall No. 11, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi was received at PS GokulPuri.

On spot, it was found that mob had burnt a building of Anil Sweet and on the 2^nd floor, one body without hands and legs was found lying in burnt condition.

Accordingly, the present FIR was registered and during the investigation, it was found that on 24^th February 2020, a riot had taken place on main road where the mob pelted stones, chanted anti-Hindu slogans, ransacked and torched many shops.

During the analysis of CCTV footage, it was found that there was huge gathering at Main Brijpuri Road and rooftops of building and people in mob were promoting enmity & disharmony by rioting, stone-pelting and instigating others.

Petitioner was arrested on the basis of the statement of eye-witness and several FIRs were filed regarding the damage incurred and the first among them was the instant FIR No.39/2020 in which the petitioner was arraigned and thereafter, he was arrested.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has a flimsy case against the petitioner which is;

• A statement of Himanshu, a student of 12th standard who claims to have seen the petitioner participating in sloganeering and stone-pelting; and
• The CDR location which claims to establish the presence of the petitioner at the scene of the incident.

It was also submitted that CDR location is only in the vicinity of the incident site for he resides in Shakti Vihar which is close to the incident site, and the petitioner is an auto-rickshaw driver.

Court's observation

The Court observed that the Prosecution itself admitted that CDR location of the petitioner does not establish his presence at the incident site and so, the Court said,

"The admission supports the case of petitioner that his CDR locations are only in the vicinity of the incident site for he resides in Shakti Vihar, which is close to the incident site and his possibility is there being an Auto Rickshaw Driver."

The Court further noted that IO himself, while seeking judicial remand against the petitioner on 12^th March 2020, admitted that only evidence they have against the petitioner is under Sections 147/148/149/153-A IPC. Even in the supplementary charge-sheet, nothing more has been said against the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid facts, without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court was of the view that the petitioner deserved bail.

Accordingly, he was directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

In related news, noting that as per the CDR details of the petitioner, he was not even in the vicinity of the violence-affected area on the date of the incident, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday (16^th February) granted Regular Bail to a Cab Driver named Mohd. Danish.

The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait was hearing Regular Bail application file by Mohd. Danish in connection with an FIR registered against him various serious offences punishable under IPC r/w Sections 3 & 4 PDPP Act and 25/27 Arms Act.

Case title - Rashid v. State (NCT Of Delhi) [BAIL. APPLN.4104/2021]

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment