Delhi Riots- "Humongous Delay In Recording Eye Witnesses Accounts": Delhi Court Grants Bail To Murder Accused

The Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav was hearing the third bail application of accused Kuldeep Singh who was allegedly involved in the brutal murder of a young auto­ driver namely Babbu during NE Delhi Riots (February 2020).

Arguments put forth by Bail Applicant

He argued before the Court that he be granted bail on the ground of parity as two co-­accused persons namely Jubair @ Zuber and Iqbal have recently been enlarged on bail by the Delhi High Court vide order(s) dated 09^th December 2020.

It was also argued by his counsel that he has not been specifically named in the FIR. eHis arrest in the matter was affected merely on the basis of disclosure statement of caucused.

Further, it was argued that no recovery of any sort has been affected from him. The police never sought his custody remand in the matter and he is not seen in any CCTV footage/clipping.

Significantly, it was also argued that there is an unexplained delay of about 81 days and 93 days in recording the statement of alleged eye witnesses Munna and Imran respectively.

Court's Observations

The Court noted that the statement of the eye witness Munna was recorded on 18^th May 2020, i.e after a humungous delay of about 83 days (the incident allegedly took place on 25^th February 2020).

The Court further observed that Munna had witnessed the incident in question on 25^th February 2020 itself, however, he neither approached the local police station on the date of incident, i.e on 25^th February 2020nor he made any call at number 100 on the said date and instead he went on to name the applicant for the first time during the course of recording of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the IO on 18^th May 2020.

The Court relied on the Apex Court's decision in the matter of Prabhakar Tewari V/s State of UP & Anr.", Criminal Appeal No.153/2020, wherein it was categorically held that if statements of witnesses is delayed by substantial time, particularly when the witnesses were available with the police, then it casts a doubt upon the prosecution story and the accused becomes entitled for bail.

Importantly, the Court also observed that the identification of applicant by police officials (who were stated to be posted as Beat Officers in the area in question at the relevant time) is hardly of any consequence.

The Court said,

"The Court is not able to comprehend as to why said Beat Officers waited till the recording of their statements/ supplementary statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C to name the applicant, when they had categorically seen and identified the applicant indulging in riots on the date of incident, i.e 25.02.2020."

Lastly, the Court directed that applicant Kuldeep be released on bail in the matter on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ld.CMM/Ld.Illaka MM/Ld.Duty MM.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order