上海工作室

[Delhi Riots] ‘Witnesses Seem To Be Planted One’, Delhi HC Grants Bail To Tahir Hussain’s Associate In Riots Case [Read Order]

first_imgNews Updates[Delhi Riots] ‘Witnesses Seem To Be Planted One’, Delhi HC Grants Bail To Tahir Hussain’s Associate In Riots Case [Read Order] Sparsh Upadhyay10 Oct 2020 8:49 PMShare This – xThe Delhi High Court on Wednesday (07th October) granted bail to one Irshad Ahmed, an alleged associate of Tahir Hussain.The Bench of Justice Suresh Kait was hearing a petition filed by the petitioner (Irshad Ahmed) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No.80/2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/436/427/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 PDPP Act, registered…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?LoginThe Delhi High Court on Wednesday (07th October) granted bail to one Irshad Ahmed, an alleged associate of Tahir Hussain.The Bench of Justice Suresh Kait was hearing a petition filed by the petitioner (Irshad Ahmed) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No.80/2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/436/427/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 PDPP Act, registered at Police Station Dayalpur, Delhi.Arguments by APPThe APP opposed the present petition by stating that on 25.02.2020, around 100 people were standing on the terrace of the house of co-accused Tahir Hussain (main accused) and they were throwing petrol bombs on the house of Hindu community.He argued that the name of the Petitioner (Irshad Ahmed) was disclosed by co-accused Tahir Hussain. The petitioner herein is an associate of the said accused. As per the statement of an eye-witness, namely, Rohit, has confirmed petitioner’s role and identification. Further, mobile phone location of the petitioner has ascertained his presence at the spot. Thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.Court’s AnalysisThe Court recorded that 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 eye witnesses and were present at the spot), they had identified the petitioner and other co-accused.However, the Court noted that they have not made any complaint on the date of the incident, i.e. 25.02.2020, whereas the FIR was lodged on 28.02.2020.Thus, the Court observed – “The said witnesses seem to be planted one”.Further, the Court remarked,”Charge-sheet 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.”Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Judge.The petition was, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]Subscribe 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 read more