0

Owing to a prima facie opinion of the Court, petitioner accused under the Arms Act given concession of bail: Delhi High Court

At the time of considering bail application, this Court is not required to dwell upon minute details on the merits of the case but has to form a prima facie opinion. This was said in the case of Tanveer Malik vs State[BAIL APPLN. 1002/2021] by Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait in the High Court of Delhi 

The facts of the case are that the petitioner is accused in FIR for allegedly committing offences under 147/148/149/153A/505/436/307/120B/34 IPC and Sections 27/30 of Arms Act. He is in judicial custody since 12.03.2020 in this case and by this petition, he is seeking bail while claiming to be innocent and of having been falsely implicated in this case.

The petitioner contended that the technical evidence relied upon by the prosecution i.e. the call detail record and CCTV footage does not in any way establish presence of petitioner at the spot, as on the day of incident petitioner was not in Delhi. Secondly, it was contended that there are six accused persons in this FIR case, however, petitioner has no concern with them and his phone location is different from that of other accused persons. Thirdly, it was contended that Constable Sodan and Constable Pawan in their statements have stated that there was a mob of 1000 to 1200 people on the day of incident and so, their claim of having identified the petitioner amongst a huge crowd of mob cannot be accepted. It was further contended that recording of injured’s supplementary statement that he identified the petitioner after seeing the pictures of the riot shown to him is nothing but an attempt to fill in the lacuna by the prosecution

The learned Special Public Prosecutor for State contended that the petitioner has been found promoting enmity and disharmony by rioting and charge sheet in this case has already been filed and trial is in progress and if released on bail, he may threaten or manipulate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and hence, this petition be rejected

The Court, after analysing the contentions of both the parties and settled position of law in the case, opined that “petitioner’s earlier bail applications in the present FIR case have been rejected by this Court, but the said orders were passed at the time when investigation was in progress and role of petitioner was yet to be established. Now, investigation is complete and charge sheet qua petitioner and other accused persons has already been filed and trial shall take substantial time. At the time of considering bail application, this Court is not required to dwell upon minute details on the merits of the case but has to form a prima facie opinion. Keeping in mind that the facts of the present case are similar to that of previous FIR, registered at police station Dayalpur, Delhi and that the questions raised in the said case and the present case are more or less similar and shall be answered during trial, I have no hesitation to hold that petitioner now deserves concession of bail in the present case as well”. Hence, the bail application was accepted.

Click here to read judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat