[Delhi Riots] 'No CCTV Footage, Video Clip Or Photo to Corroborate The Prosecution's Claim', Delhi HC Grants Bail To Man In Riots Case [Read Order]
The Delhi High Court on Monday (12th October) granted bail to a man named Mohammad Rehan, who was arrested for allegedly rioting during the Delhi Riots (in February 2020), after noting that there was no CCTV footage, video clip or photo to corroborate prosecution's claim.The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait was hearing the plea filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of...
The Delhi High Court on Monday (12th October) granted bail to a man named Mohammad Rehan, who was arrested for allegedly rioting during the Delhi Riots (in February 2020), after noting that there was no CCTV footage, video clip or photo to corroborate prosecution's claim.
The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait was hearing the plea filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No.117/2020 dated 04.03.2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/436/427/120-B IPC, registered at PS Dayalpur, Delhi.
Arguments put forth by SPP
The SPP opposed the present petition by stating that during investigation statement of PW Khaleel was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who had seen the incident and also identified the petitioner along with other co-accused persons. The said witness was able to identify the petitioner as he knew him previously.
Moreover, statement of PWs Irfan, Salim, Surender Singh and Pradeep Kumar Verma were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who had also seen the incident and had identified the petitioner along with other co-accused persons.
They also knew the petitioner previously and on the recording of their statements, the petitioner was formally arrested in Mandoli Jail as he was already in judicial custody in case FIR No.101/2020.
Learned SPP further submits that the petitioner is involved in four other riot cases, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Court's Observations
The Court observed that it was not in dispute that in the present case there was no CCTV footage, video clip or photo to corroborate prosecution's claim.
Further, the Court noted that statement of Constable Pawan and Constable Vikram were recorded being eyewitnesses whereby, they identified the petitioner.
However, the Court observed that they did not make any DD entry as the alleged incident took place on 25.02.2020 whereas the FIR in the case was registered on 04.03.2020.
Further the Court remarked.
"Even the witness Irfan, Salim, Surender Singh and Pradeep Kumar Verma who claimed to know the petitioner, they also did not make any complaint to the police on 25.02.2020. Even the Constable Pawan and Constable Vikram, being the responsible officials of the police, did not make any DD entry or PCR call on the day of the incident regarding the same."
In view of above, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioner deserved bail as he was in judicial custody since 20.04.2020.
Accordingly, the Court directed that he shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Judge.
It may be noted that the Delhi High Court on Tuesday (13th October) granted bail to a man named Kasim, who was arrested for allegedly rioting during the Delhi Riots (in February 2020), after noting that petitioner was not seen in any of the 11 footages which were received from different social media.
Notably, while observing that "the witnesses seem to be planted one", the Delhi High Court on Wednesday (07th October) had granted bail to one Irshad Ahmed, an alleged associate of Tahir Hussain.
[Read Order]