Where prima facie evidence of involvement in grave offense is present, Court is not inclined to grant bail: High Court of New Delhi
The role attributed to the petitioner is not confined to participation in the mob of rioters but of heading the large crowd, holding a pistol in hand and releasing open fire shots. The video clipping and pictures played before this Court have shaken the conscience of this Court how petitioner could take law and order in his hands. SHAHRUKH PATHAN @ KHAN V. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI[BAIL APPLN. 664/2021] in the High Court of New Delhi single bench consisting of JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT.
Facts are that the petitioner was at Jaffrabad Metro Station and Maujpur Chowk, where a clash between two groups took place on 24.02.2020, it was recorded, by a Journalist and the person brandishing and firing from pistol was identified as the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking bail in FIR thus filed against him U/S.147/148/149/186/216/307/353 IPC & Sections 25/27 Arms Act.
The counsel for petitioner submitted that after the alleged incident had taken place FIR in question was registered after 50 hours delay in registration of and placed reliance upon decision of the Court in Thulia Kali Vs. State and also on State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, that delay in lodging the FIR is an afterthought and results in embellishment.
The Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the present petition while submitting that the FIR in question has been registered at the instance of a responsible police officer. That petitioner had absconded since the day of alleged incident. That during interrogation, petitioner has admitted of having purchased the illegal weapon from Merrut for a sum of Rs.35,000 and call detail record and video footage analysis clearly show petitioner’s involvement.
Considering the law and the facts of the case the court held that, “Whether or not petitioner had intention to kill the complainant or any person present in the public with his open air pistol shots, but it is hard to believe that he had no knowledge that his act may harm anyone present at the spot. The worthiness of complainant’s statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and petitioner’s claim that he had not aimed pistol to shot at the complainant, shall be tested at trial.”
The court further opined that, “it is not the case of petitioner that he was not involved in the alleged incident. In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial court has rightly held that the petitioner is alleged to have participated in riots and his picture speaks a volume about his involvement.”The court refused to grant bail as the accused had been charged with grave offenses. Thus the court dismissed the petition.