Likelihood Of Accused Influencing Witnesses & Tampering With Evidence: Delhi HC Denies Bail To Former Tihar Jail Official In Undertrial Prisoner’s Murder Case
|The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to former Tihar Jail official being accused of killing Undertrial Prisoner (UTP) and alleged gangster Ankit Gujjar in the year 2021.
The accused Narendra Meena filed an application, seeking bail in respect of an FIR registered against him under Sections 302, 323, 341, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed, “After considering all facts and keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offences and the likelihood of the petitioner influencing the witnesses/tampering with the evidence, no ground for bail is made out.”
The Bench said that there is nothing on record to show that the delay in trial if any, is caused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared for the petitioner/accused while Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Rajesh Kumar appeared for the respondent/CBI.
Factual Background -
In 2021, an FIR was registered pertaining to the murder of an undertrial prisoner Ankit Gujjar. The allegations as per the FIR were that the petitioner/accused, the then Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail-3, Tihar Central Prison, New Delhi and other jail officials had brutally beaten Ankit and did not provide any medical attention, leading to his death in the jail premises. It was alleged that the accused and other officials were harassing Ankit to extort money from his relatives. UTP’s mother and other relatives had filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking transfer of investigation of FIR and the same was transferred to CBI by the Court.
Subsequently, the FIR was re-registered against six persons including the petitioner. Allegedly, the petitioner-accused had demanded Rs. 5 lakhs from Ankit for allowing him to use mobile phone and the deal was finalised at Rs. 2.25 lakhs, out of which Rs. 2 lakhs were paid. It was further alleged that Ankit did not give the balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- and due to this reason, the accused starting harassing him as well as other two inmates lodged in his cell. In view of the case registered against him, the accused approached the High Court, seeking bail.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The primary argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner for grant of bail to the petitioner is the plea of alibi i.e. the petitioner could not have committed the alleged offences as the petitioner was inside the Internal Jail only for 25 minutes and it is practically impossible for him to call the jail staff with lathis to Ward-5A, beat the inmates for 10 minutes, then take them to electrical panja and beat them for about 45 minutes there.”
The Court enunciated that the plea of alibi is considered to be a defence which is to be raised at the stage of trial and not at the stage of consideration of the application for grant of regular bail.
“The arguments advanced by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner are without any force particularly in view of statements of eye-witnesses recorded during investigation. … It is also stated in bail application that the investigation qua the petitioner was already complete and the prosecution is relying on 150 witnesses, 159 documents and 24 exhibits and as such the trial would take considerable time to conclude”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court took note of the fact that, UTP Ankit Gujjar died while he was in judicial custody and the post mortem report reflects multiple ante mortem injuries on his body.
“The trial court in impugned order also observed that the petitioner tried to influence witnesses and larger interest of the society has to be given preference over the liberty of the accused”, it also said.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail application.
Cause Title- Narendra Meena v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7531)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rebecca John, Advocates Gaurav Gupta, Deepanshu Choithani, Anushka Baruah, Mayank Pachauri, Hasan Zaidi, Rohit Kumar, and Madhuri Khubwani.
Respondent: SPP Rajesh Kumar, Advocates Mishika Pandita, and Mohd. Changez Ali Khan.