The Karkardooma Court (Delhi) on Thursday (19th November) granted bail to a man in a case related to the communal violence which took place in NE Delhi (February 2020), while observing that there was "gaping hole" in the statement of an eye witness in the matter.
The Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat was hearing the Bail Plea of one Gurmeet Singh accused of causing grievous bullet injury to Rizwan on February 25 at Kardam Puri Pulia during the riots.
Allegation against Gurmeet Singh
The instant case was a result of grievous bullet injury suffered by the victim Rizwan on 25.02.2020 at around 11.30 PM at Kardampuri Pulia, Delhi. The victim had not seen the attacker in the mob doing the rioting.
During investigation, on 24.04.2020, one public witness namely Mohd. Rafiq came and gave statement that five persons including Gurmeet Singh (Bail applicant) were also involved in this case.
He stated that he is a vegetable seller and on 25.02.2020 while he was selling vegetables on his rehari from Kardam Puri Puliya to service road, communal riots took place and he saw that unlawful assembly of Hindus were beating some Muslim and some unknown persons were firing and doing rioting.
All the five accused including Gurmeet Singh (Bail applicant) persons including applicant were arrested in the present case at Mandoli Jail. It was submitted that the accused is seen in CCTV footage collected from around the place of occurrence.
It was further submitted that accused is also involved in 07 other riots cases and that he was a member of an unlawful assembly and liable for every action done by the assembly in prosecution of common object of that assembly u/s. 149 IPC.
The Court observed that the witness gave this statement on 24.04.2020 while the incident pertains to 25.02.2020.
Further, the Court also noted that the applicant was not arrested, in the present case, on the instance of any witness but was formally arrested at Mandoli Jail.
To this, the Court said,
"If that is so, then how the witness Rafiq has identified the accused by his face, is still anyone's guess. There is a gaping hole between the said two aspects."
The Court also remarked,
"The CCTV footage is not of the place of incident but around the place of occurrence. The accused is in custody since 24.04.2020. Considering the period of custody of the accused and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C filed by applicant/accused is allowed."