A court in Delhi has rejected the bail application of a 28-year-old man accused of murdering a young auto driver during the Delhi riots at the starting of 2020. 

The accused argued that his fellow co-accused has been already released on bail, charge sheet was filed, the investigation was completed, and he wasn't required anymore in this matter for the custodial interrogation. It was also submitted that the statement of the independent witness and the police constable were contradictory to each other claiming a different weapon of attack in the applicant's hand. 

The Court however rejected the application and said that even though it was aware of the fact that other accused in the matter has been released on bail already, this case was a different one as the accused person had been identified by the independent eyewitness whereas the one who was released had not been identified by any eyewitness except the police constable. 

The counsel for the applicant had argued that the applicant was a young man nearly 28 years of age and the soul breed honor of his family of 8 people including two unmarried sisters, old parents, his wife, and a minor daughter of 2 years of age. The applicant was falsely accused in this matter as he hasn't been specifically named in the FIR and wasn't found in any CCTV footage. The defendant counsel has relied upon the case of Kamaljeet Singh v. State of Punjab 2005 (4) LRC 384 (SC) to press for bail on the ground of parity as his fellow co-accused had already been granted bail. 

The prosecution has argued that the matter is related to the brutal murder of a young auto driver and video footage regarding the same has been captured by the news network, BBC and the investigation officer was in the process of procuring the same. the public prosecutor also emphasizes that since the independent eyewitness in this matter was a resident of the same locality as the accused applicant there was a possibility of witness-threatening if the accused was released on bail. 

The Court observed that the regular bail application of the accused, who had been in custody since March 30, 2020, had already been rejected by the same court in a detailed order dated July 10, 2020, and that since then there had been no significant change in circumstances warranting interference in that order. Furthermore, the court also stated that it was drawing an adverse inference against the applicant as he had refused to take part in the judicial "Test Identification Parade" (TIP) taking the specific plea that the witness was known to him and reside in his neighborhood and therefore he wouldn't participate in the identification parade. Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes the identification of the proper accused and properties admissible and relevant in the court of law but there is no specific provision to direct the suspects to be present for the identification parade by the investigation officer but recently Section 54 A was introduced in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to meet the situation according to which the Court can direct the person arrested to present for an identification parade on the request of investigating police officer.

The Court however rejected the applicant's bail application and said that the eyewitness in the present case were all residents of the same locality and therefore the possibility of the accused threatening the witness if released on bail. 

 

[READ ORDER]