Delhi Riots- As Per CDR Details He Was Not Even In The Vicinity Of Violence Affected Area : Delhi HC Grants Bail To Riots Accused

first_imgNews UpdatesDelhi Riots- As Per CDR Details He Was Not Even In The Vicinity Of Violence Affected Area : Delhi HC Grants Bail To Riots Accused Sparsh Upadhyay16 Feb 2021 7:08 AMShare This – x”It seems from the CDR details of the petitioner that on the date of the incident, i.e. 24th February 2020, he was not even in the vicinity of the violence affected area i.e. Main Wazirabad Road.” : Delhi HCNoting that as per the CDR details of the petitioner, he was not even in the vicinity of the violence-affected area on the date of the incident, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday (16th February) granted Regular Bail to a Cab Driver named Mohd. Danish. The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait was hearing Regular Bail application file by Mohd. Danish in connection with an FIR…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginNoting that as per the CDR details of the petitioner, he was not even in the vicinity of the violence-affected area on the date of the incident, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday (16th February) granted Regular Bail to a Cab Driver named Mohd. Danish. The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait was hearing Regular Bail application file by Mohd. Danish in connection with an FIR registered against him various serious offences punishable under IPC r/w Sections 3 & 4 PDPP Act and 25/27 Arms Act. Averments in the Bail plea On 24th February (the date of the incident) the petitioner stayed at maternal aunt’s/elder sister’s place at Chandbagh area (in Karawal Nagar, Delhi) and on 25th February, around 6:00 am in the morning, petitioner returned to his residence where his parents were residing, i.e. Loni Ghaziabad, UP. However, on 10th March 2020, the petitioner got a call from one lady customer asking for petitioner’s cab on monthly basis. Accordingly, the petitioner left his residence at Loni to reach at the customer’s location and while the petitioner was en-route, he was confronted by Nandnagri Police Personnel and was brought to Nandnagri Police Station and thereafter, he was taken to Crime Branch, Lodhi Road. It was argued by Senior Counsel, Salman Khurshid who appeared for the petitioner that the alleged statements given to the police personnel suffered from gross illegalities and patently in violation of Sections 161 and 162 of the Cr.P.C. Besides that, the statements are absolutely photocycle in nature, and that the Petitioner did not know any of the co-accused either. Therefore, it was stated that the alleged statements appear to be fabricated and copied, hence, inadmissible as per law. It was also contended that as per CDRs records, there is no outgoing or incoming Call/SMS from the mobile number of the petitioner to any of the co-accused numbers. Moreover, it was also submitted that the location as per CDRs is 200-250 meters away from the place of incident i.e. Main Wazirabad Road Near Chandbagh area. Prosecution’s case It was argued that the Petitioner is a resident of Loni, Ghaziabad, however, on 23rd February and 24th February and at the time of the incident, his location was at Chandbagh at the place of the incident as per call detail records. It was also contended that the Petitioner was actively involved in riots and was identified by the witnesses Ct. Sunil and Ct. Gyan of PS Dayalpur. Their statements in this regard have been recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Further, it was argued that It is a case of the murder of one public servant while performing his official duties, the petitioner actively participated in the riots and as a part of unlawful assembly, the petitioner is responsible for the act too. Court’s observations The Court analyzed the CDR records of the petitioner and observed, “It seems from the CDR details of the petitioner that on the date of incident, i.e. 24th February 2020, he was not even in the vicinity of the violence affected area i.e. Main Wazirabad Road.” The court also noted that there is no CDR entry which can possibly show any call record between the people disclosing the petitioner’s name and the petitioner and that there is no CCTV footage or viral video to implicate the petitioner. The Court also observed that the initial statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of beat Const. Gyan and Const. Sunil dated 27th February 2020 do not name petitioner and much later, after a span of twelve days in their supplementary statement, dated 10th March 2020, the name of petitioner appears. Lastly, taking into account the facts of the case, the fact that charge-sheet has already been file, that the petitioner is no more required for investigation and that the trial of the case shall take substantial time, the Court was of the view that the petitioner deserved bail. Accordingly, he was directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.Case title – Mohd. Danish v. State (NCT Of Delhi) [BAIL. APPLN.3550/2020]Click Here To Download JudgmentRead JudgmentSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *