Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Accused Involved In Murder Case During 2020 Riots
The Delhi High Court denied bail to a man accused of murder along with Sections 147, 148, 153A, 380, 427, 436 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (AA).
The Court noted that it would be unsuitable to grant bail at this stage. The Court emphasized on evidence of the eye witness and the Accused’s refusal to participate in the judicial test identification parade (TIP).
“It is also pertinent to note that the applicant refused to participate in the judicial TIP… On a prima facie view, there is material on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offences. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned SPP that the applicant cannot be granted bail only on account of long incarceration, as the applicant has been charged with offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life”, the Bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed.
Advocate Tara Narula appeared for the Applicant and Special Public Prosecutor Rajat Nair appeared for the State.
The Applicant approached the High Court seeking regular bail under Sections 147, 148, 153A, 380, 427, 436, 450 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (AA). The FIR pertained to the riots and communal disharmony in northeast Delhi in February 2020, resulting in the death of an innocent bystander named Rahul Solanki.
Per the prosecution's case, the deceased suffered a gunshot injury and was declared dead at the Hospital. The Applicant, not initially named in the FIR, was arrested based on information from an informer. Previous bail applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court on 30th June 2021, and 11th May 2023.
Based on the provided statements, The Court noted that it is evident that the eyewitness, Anil Kumar, had identified the Applicant as the person responsible for shooting the bullet that resulted in the death of the deceased.
Additionally, the Bench noted that the applicant declined to participate in the judicial Test Indentification Parade (TIP). Considering the prima facie evidence indicating the applicant's involvement in the alleged offences, and the serious nature of the charges, including those punishable by death or life imprisonment, the Court deemed it inappropriate to grant bail at this stage, especially when material witnesses are yet to be examined.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Application.
Cause Title: Mohd. Mustaqeem v State (Govt Of Nct) Of Delhi (2023:DHC:9079)
