Delhi High Court - Orders
Saif Ali Alias Golu vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 18 May, 2023
$~2 & 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(2)
+ BAIL APPLN. 2814/2022
SAIF ALI ALIAS GOLU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravin Rao, Mr. Pallav Gupta and
Mr. Akshit Sawal, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the
State.
(3)
+ BAIL APPLN. 2916/2022
MOHD. SHAKIL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravin Rao, Mr. Pallav Gupta and
Mr. Akshit Sawal, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 18.05.2023 BAIL APPLN. 2814/2022 & BAIL APPLN. 2916/2022
1. These petitions have been moved for seeking regular bail for the petitioners in FIR No.250/2020 registered under Sections 304/323/34 IPC at PS Jahangir Puri. The petitioners have been in custody since 24.06.2020 (about three years now). It was noted in the order of this Court dated This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 14:52:25 16.01.2023 as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners state that the petitioners have been in custody for 2 years and 7 months and based on charge of Section 304/323/34 IPC which was later converted to Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the primary evidence on which the prosecution seeks to rely upon as that of the father of the deceased (Rafat) who reported an altercation which happened with his son and Shaabaz, Raja, Saif Ali @ Golu and Guddu in the lane near their house.
The prosecution reliance was also primarily on the CCTV footage which was reported as showing the petitioners as banging the head of the deceased against the wall which resulted in his death. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the CCTV footage to the Court where from the angle of the camera of the CCTV, it is not evident that the deceased head was banged against the wall deliberately, although there is a scuffle which ensues pursuant to the deceased throwing a brick at Shahbaz in the lane. It is further submitted that the cause of death was an aneurysm which could potentially have occurred not due to any hitting of the head on the wall but due to prior medical condition of the deceased or otherwise."
2. Considering these circumstances, this Court had awaited the recording of the testimony of the father of the deceased who was also an injured witness and the matter was fixed for 16.03.2023. However, since the testimony could not be record, the matter was again fixed for 24.04.2023. Directions were then given to complete the recording of the testimony of the father on the subsequent date before the Ld. Trial Court. It is stated today by the parties that the testimony of the father Mr. Rafat has been duly recorded before the Ld. Trial Court.
3. Ld. APP states that there are other material witnesses which need to be examined who were the persons in the Colony.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that as noted above, there was no premeditation in this situation as the deceased was seen clearly in the CCTV footage attempting to attack the main accused This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 14:52:25 Shahbaz, in the lane near their house and was holding a brick. Thereafter, as per the CCTV footage, accused Shahbaz caught hold of the said deceased and gave beating to the deceased. It was contended, as per the CCTV footage, the accused Saif Ali tried to intervene and stop the fight, although the allegation is, as per the prosecution, that he was holding the deceased. As regards, accused Mohd. Shakil, who was the father of Shahbaz, even as per the case of the prosecution, he is present in the vicinity and at best, the accused had exhorted the assailant. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the post mortem report, as per which the opinion is that the cause of death was brain haemorrhage due to rupture of berry aneurysm precipitated by assault. However, subsequent opinion taken on 18.08.2020 noted that the rupture of the berry aneurysm can occur spontaneously as well as due to trauma like hitting the head on wall. It is contended that the CCTV footage in this regard is quite clear in that the beatings to the deceased, if at all was given by the said Shahbaz and not by the petitioner Saif Ali or by the petitioner Mohd. Shakil.
5. Ld. APP has refuted these allegations and stated that there is also a previous involvement of the petitioner Saif Ali.
6. Perusal of the Nominal Roll shows that there is an involvement of Saif Ali in FIR No.526/2017 under Sections 354/451/506/323/34 IPC, PS Jahangirpuri. There is no other pending previous involvement of the petitioner Mohd. Shakil, who was also granted interim bail with effect from 24.05.2021 to 01.06.2021 and he did not misuse the concession.
7. Considering that the petitioners have been in custody for about three years and the trial is still to progress, as also the testimony of the main injured witness (the father of the deceased) has already been recorded, as This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 14:52:26 also the fact that there is, as per the contentions of the accused/petitioners, considerable doubt regarding the cause of death, as also the role attributed to the petitioners herein. In opinion of this Court, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody for an indefinite period, considering these circumstances.
8. Ld. APP has, however, stated that if released on bail, these petitioners should not tamper with the evidence or not attempt to influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever. Needless to say, if any such complaint is received, the State will be at liberty to approach this Court with application for cancellation of bail.
9. In light of the above, and that the trial in the matter is likely to take some time, and it would not be prudent to keep the petitioners behind bars for an indefinite period, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court, further subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioners will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
(ii) Petitioners shall provide permanent address to the Ld. Trial Court.
The petitioners shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit and to the IO regarding any change in residential address.
(iii) Petitioners shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.
(iv) Petitioners shall join investigation as and when called by the IO concerned.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 14:52:26
(v) Petitioners shall provide all mobile numbers to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times and shall not switch off or change the mobile number without prior intimation to the IO concerned. The mobile location be kept on at all times.
(vi) Petitioners shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecution witnesses, the complainant/victim or any member of the complainant/victim's family or tamper with the evidence of the case.
10. Needless to state, but any observation touching the merits of the case is purely for the purposes of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall not be construed as an expression on merits of the matter.
11. Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.
12. Accordingly, the applications are disposed of.
13. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J MAY 18, 2023/kct This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 14:52:26