Delhi riots: HC grants bail to two accused, says no substantial evidence

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two persons accused of murder and other charges related to the northeast Delhi riots, noting that there was no substantial evidence such as CCTV footage linking them to the crime.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait granted bail to Sunny alias Lalla and Brij Mohan Sharma alias Gabbar while directing them not to “directly or indirectly influence any witness” in the case which is pending trial at a local court here.

“This court finds that there is no CCTV footage or any other electronic evidence available on record except the call detail record, which establishes the presence of petitioners in the area in question but again it cannot be lost sight of the fact that these petitioners are residing in the same area so, their location has to be in the same area,” Justice Kait said.

“As far as their involvement in the alleged incident is concerned, how their call details connect them to the offence in question, is subject to trial,” the High Court added.

The case relates to the murder of 25-year-old Irfan who died on February 26 last year after receiving head injuries.

During investigation, the statement of the mother of the deceased, who is allegedly the only eyewitness to the incident, was recorded. She stated that on February 26, 2020 about 7.30 p.m., she along with her son was going to fetch milk, when they were attacked by eight or 10 persons of their locality in Kartar Nagar.

She claimed that her son was attacked with iron rod, bat and iron pipes. She named four attackers as Gabbar, Lalla, Pankaj and subzi wala, whom she could identify being residents of the same locality.

In view of her statement, the two petitioners were arrested on March 28, 3020 and in their disclosure statements they admitted having been involved in the alleged incident with other co-accused.

However, they refused to undergo Test Identification Parade (TIP proceedings). Later the bail application of Lalla and Gabbar were dismissed by local courts here. The duo then moved the High Court for bail.

The duo's counsel argued that statements of eyewitness were contradictory not only with regard to the aspect whether she was walking with the deceased or the deceased was ahead of her but also use of weapon of offence.

The counsel further argued that the wife of deceased stated before the media persons that she and her mother-in-law were at home at the time of alleged incident.

“Pertinently, wife of deceased has not been made a prosecution witness in this case and so, her statement before the media is of no help to the case of petitioners,” the High Court noted.

“The worthiness of statement of this witness shall be tested at trial but the fact remains that there is no recovery of weapon of offence from both the petitioners,” the High Court said adding, “without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail”.

Our code of editorial values

Related Topics
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Jan 28, 2022 6:18:37 AM |

Next Story