The counsel of the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail because the other three accused persons were granted bail by the same court, and these three accused had the same role as that of the petitioner. But the Special Public Prosecutor could not prove that the role of the petitioner was different than that of the other three person’s accused. Hence the court decided that the Petitioner deserved to be released on Bail. A single judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Suresh Kumar Kait in the matter of Imran Vs. NCT Delhi State (CRL.M.A. 9734/2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner has approached the court through a bail application, seeking bail.
In the present case, an FIR was registered against the petitioner at Khajuri Khas, New Delhi. The petitioner was behind the bars since 20th March 2020. The petitioner thereby approached the court seeking bail under Sections 147/148/149/302/153A/505/120B/ 34 of IPC. A notice was issued and the Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent (State) accepted the notice.
The counsel of the petitioner submitted before the hon’ble court, that the petitioner deserved to be released on bail, as there was no electronic evidence such as CCTV footage or mobile record, that can establish the presence of the petitioner in the crime spot. The counsel also submitted that twelve names of accused persons were given by two official eyewitnesses. In which seven accused persons were granted bail by the learned trial court and four of the accused out of the twelve were granted bail by the same court. Further, the counsel pointed out that the role assigned to the petitioner was the same as that of three other accused persons, to whom the same court granted bail.
The Special Public Prosecutor opposed this and submitted before the court that another eye witness- Sandeep Kumar in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, gave four names of accused persons which included the petitioner’s name.
After hearing both the counsels, the court decided- “that the petitioner deserved to be released on bail because other 11 accused persons were granted bail and the Special Public Prosecutor was unable to distinguish the role assigned to petitioner in this FIR case”. Thereby the court directed the release of the petitioner on bail, upon his furnishing a personal bond of the sum of RS. 20,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, that would confirm that upon this bail the petitioner will not influence the prosecution case during trial. Also, the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any evidence or influence any witnesses. Further, the petitioner has to appear before the trial court as and when called for.