Delhi HC Grants Bail To Accused Rickshaw Driver In Delhi Riots Case

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The High Court of Delhi issued a regular bail to a cab driver identified Mohd. Danish on Tuesday (16 February).

Suresh Kumar Kait, the Justice, heard Mohd's Daily Bail plea. Danish documented a number of serious offenses against him in connection with the FIR, punishable by IPC r/w Sections 3 & 4 of the PDPP Act and 25/27 of the Arms Act.

FURTHER DETAILS

On 24 February, the petitioner stayed at the maternal aunt's/old sister's venue in the Chandbagh neighbourhood, and on 25 February, at about 6:00 a.m. in the morning, the plaintiff relocated to his domicile where his mom and dad resided, i.e. Loni Ghaziabad, UP.

Conversely, on 10 March 2020, the appellant received a call from a woman client requesting for the petitioner's taxi on a monthly basis.

Correspondingly, the appellant left his dwelling at Loni to approach the customer's coordinates, and while the plaintiff was on the way, he was accosted by the Nandnagri Police Personnel and obtained to the Nandnagri Police Station, and then taken to the Crime Branch, Lodhi Road.

Salman Khurshid who appeared for the plaintiff that the ostensible issues raised to the police personnel had suffered gross illegality and had manifestly violated Sections 161 and 162 of the CrPC.

It was also claimed that, as per the CDRs, there is no outgoing or incoming Call/SMS from the plaintiff's phone number to either of the co-accused numbers.

COURT'S JUDGEMENT

The Court reviewed the plaintiff's CDR documents and noticed that it appeared from the CDR information of the petitioner that he was not even in the vicinity of the violence on the day of the occurrence, i.e. 24 February 2020.

The court also observed that there is no CDR submission that can indicate any call history among both the names of the petitioner and the other accused and that there is no CCTV footage or viral content to support the allegations against him.

The Court also stated that the original claims alluded to in Section 161 of the CrPC. Of beating Const. Hey, Gyan and Const. Sunil dated 27 February 2020 does not specify a petitioner, and much later, after a time of twelve days in their supplementary report dated 10 March 2020, the name of the petitioner emerges.

Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the circumstance that the lawsuit has already been filed, that the complainant is no longer needed for prosecution and that the prosecution of the case requires a significant amount of time, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioner warranted bail.

Appropriately, he was ordered to submit a personal bond on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/-and with one promise in the same amount to the gratification of the Trial Court.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE DETAINMENT OF MOHD. DANISH WAS JUSTIFIED? IS THIS ANOTHER FISH HUNTING EXPIDITION TURNED INTO MAN HUNTING? LET US KNOW YOUR OPINIONS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!