Bail granted to accused when Special Public Prosecutor fails to produce credible evidence against the accused: High Court of Delhi.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 05.07.2021 BAIL APPLN. 2221 2021 & CRL.M.A. 9734 2021 Through: Mr. Abdul Gaffar Advocate Petitioner NCT DELHI STATE Through: Mr. Rajat Nair & Mr. Amit Mahajan Respondent Special Public Prosecutors with Mr.Shantnu Sharma & Mr.Dhruv Pande Advocates & Inspector Vikas HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENT The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking bail in FIR No. 119 2020 under Sections 147 148 149 302 153A 505 120B 34 IPC registered at police station Khajuri Khas New Delhi. Petitioner is behind bars since 20.03.2020 in this FIR case. Notice issued. 3. Mr. Rajat Nair learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 State accepts notice. BAIL APPLN. 2221 2021 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no electronic evidence like CCTV footage or mobile location record to establish his presence at the crime spot. The investigation in this case is complete and charge sheet has already been filed. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has been arrested in this case on the basis of statement of two official eye witnesses i.e. Constable Anil and Constable Bhupinder who are planted witnesses and have named 12 accused persons including that of petitioner. It is next submitted that out of 12 accused persons 07 accused personshave been granted bail by this Court. Learned counsel for petitioner also submits that the role attributed to petitioner is similar to the one assigned to accused Jubair @ Zubair and Iqbal who have been granted bail by this Court and therefore petitioner also deserves to be released on bail. On the contrary the present petition is opposed by learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent State while drawing attention of this Court to the statement of another eye witness Sandeep Kumar recorded under BAIL APPLN. 2221 2021 Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he has named four accused persons and name of petitioner appears at serial No.4 as mentioned by him. Upon hearing counsel representing both the sides and perusal of material placed on record I find that 11 accused persons have already been granted bail and the learned Special Public Prosecutor is unable to distinguish the role assigned to petitioner in this FIR case. Pertinently charge sheet has already been filed and trial is in progress which will take In the light of afore noted facts I am of the view that petitioner substantial time. deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly without commenting on the merits of the case petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20 000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court Duty Magistrate while making it clear that any observation made herein shall not influence the prosecution case during trial. 10. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influence any witness or tamper with the evidence and will appear before the trial court as and when 11. With aforesaid directions the present petition is disposed of while BAIL APPLN. 2221 2021 making it clear that any observation made herein shall not influence the trial of the prosecution case. 12. Pending application also stands disposed of. 13. A copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court and Jail Superintendent concerned for information and compliance. JUDGE SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JULY 05 2021 BAIL APPLN. 2221 2021 

Summary: 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.