CRUX: State vs Amit Goswami - Delhi Court Casts Serious Doubt on Credibility Of Police Witnesses, Grants Bail To One On Ground Of Parity.
DATE OF ORDER: 23.03.2021
JUDGE: Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav
PARTIES
- Appellant – Amit Goswami
- Respondents – State (govt of NTC of Delhi)
COUNSEL
- Shri Naresh Kumar Gaur, Ld. Special PP for the State.
- Ms. Mukta Arora, Ld. Counsel for accused Amit Goswami/applicant.
SUMMARY: An accused was given bail by a Delhi court on grounds of parity casting serious doubts on credibility of police witnesses.
ISSUE: Whether it is lawful to grant bail on grounds of parity when there are police witnesses present in the case
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 147, 148, 149, 457, 435, 436, 454, and 380 of The Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 161 of The Code of Criminal Procedure
OVERVIEW
1. A FIR was registered on the complaint of Mohd. Aslam under sec. 147, 148, 149, 457, 435, 436, 454 and 380 of the IPC in Bhajanpura Police Station. The two co accused namely Mukesh and Sunil Sharma were granted bail by the Court vide orders dated on 18.09.2020 and 30.09.2020 respectively.
2. The prosecution submitted via special public prosecutor, Naresh Kumar Gaur that the applicant was a part of riotous mob which was involved in vandalzing, looting, arsoning, putting on fire his shop at B453, main market, and assaulting the complainant and indulged in “anti-national activities”. It was further submitted that the accused is actively involved in the riots and such activities and “chanted slogans against other community”. The prosecution further claimed that the 2 constables present at the scene has identifies the accused as a member of the mob at the time and date of the incident.
3. The learned additional sessions judge observed in his order that besides pressing into service the ground of parity, the counsel has very vigorously argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter by the police. And he has been locked up in judicial custody since 16th April 2020.
4.The applicant has neither been specifically named in the FIR nor any specific role has been assigned to him in the matter. there is no CCTV footage or video clip of the incident and the question available in the matter. even the Judicial Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the applicant was not conducted in the matter. it was further argued that constable Yogesh and constable Bhagirath are "planted witnesses". As they witnessed the incident and didn't report it in the police station on 25th February itself and waited till the statement came out.
it is further argued that pretrial detention has been depreciated by the court and "bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Ultimately it was argued that investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed and there is no need for the applicant for custodial interrogation.
5. When a question was put before the learned special PP as to whether the case was any different from Mukesh Kaali and Sunil Sharma who has already been granted on bail it was concede that the role assigned is same in the material being relied upon in the matter is also the same.
ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT
1. The judge stated while observing the case held that – “the applicant has neither been specifically named in the FIR nor there is any CCTV footage/videoclip of the incident in question available on record.”
2. It appears that the applicant was merely and solely arrested on the ground of statement made by the two Constables.
3. The honorable judge observed that - “I am fortified in my aforesaid view on the strength of specific observations made by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 07.10.2020, passed in Bail Application No.2696/2020, titled as, “Irshad Ahmed V/s State of NCT of Delhi”, whereby the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to observe in paragraphs No.3 and 4 thereof as under:
A. It is not in dispute that there is no electronic evidence such as CCTV footage or photos to implicate the petitioner in the present case. As per the statement of Constable Pawan and Constable Ankit (both are eyewitnesses and were present at the spot), they had identified the petitioner and other coaccused. However, they have not made any complaint on the date of incident, i.e 25.02.2020, whereas the FIR was lodged on 28.02.2020. Thus, the said witnesses seem to be planted one.
B. Chargesheet has already been filed. Trial of the case shall take substantial time. However, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.”
4. Keeping the above mentioned points, it was concluded that the applicant also deserves bail in the present matter on the ground of parity with co-accused namely Mukesh Kaali and Sunil Sharma.
5. Hence, applicant Amit Goswami is granted bail the present matter with a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety with satisfaction of the court subject to the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness in any manner. And he shall continue to maintain peace and harmony in the locality. And shall cooperate and be present at the proceedings in accordance with the bail bond.
6. Application stands disposed off accordingly.
CONCLUSION
The applicant was arrested in the matter and was accused of vandalizing, looting, arsoning, putting a shop on fire, and assaulting along with a riotous mob. The applicant was arrested based on statement given by two constables as witness of the incident. and a FIR was registered under section 147, 148, 149, 457, 435, 436, 454, and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.
The applicant argued that why did the police officers waited for the matter to arise why they did not report the incident in the police office at the same date itself. The applicant also claimed that these cons tables were placed witnesses. Another major claim by the applicant was that he was neither specifically named in the FIR nor any specific role was assigned to him in the matter and there was no CCTV footage or video clip of the same.
The court held that as the investigation was over, and the charge sheet was filed there was no need for the applicant to stay in judicial custody. As a result, he was granted a bail on grounds of parity as the co-accused namely Mukesh Kali and Sunil Sharma but also granted bail. A personal bond with the sum of rupees 20,000 was set which was subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness in any matter. and he shall co-operate with the court and the proceedings in accordance with the bail bond.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
