Delhi High Court - Orders
Md. Imran vs State on 27 May, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1188/2021
MD. IMRAN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Mohan and Mr.Lakshya
Gupta, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Amit Gupta, APP for State with
Inspector Pankaj Arora, PS Sadar
Bazar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 27.05.2021 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
1. By this petition, petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.204/2019 under Sections 304/308/468/471/34 IPC and Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (in short 'JJ Act') registered at PS Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Mohd. Rehan and Mohd. Suhail who were the co-owners of the buildings have already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court. Charges for offences punishable under Section 304 Part-II or in the alternative Section 304A IPC have been framed against the co-accused and the petitioner is similarly placed except that there is an allegation of forgery of a document against the petitioner. The offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC would be punishable upto ten years whereas in case of Section 304A IPC the maximum punishment that could be awarded is two Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE BAIL APPLN. 1188/2021 Page 1 of 4 MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:28.05.2021 08:56:20 years imprisonment and the petitioner has been in custody now for more than six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the delay in surrender for the petitioner was for the reason he was availing his remedies and on the failure thereof the petitioner surrendered to custody.
3. Learned APP for the State opposing the grant of bail submits that the date of incident is 8th December, 2019 and the co-accused Mohd.Rehan and Mohd.Suhail were arrested immediately thereafter on 8th December, 2019 and 11th December, 2019 respectively whereas the petitioner absconded and a reward of ₹50,000/- was announced for his arrest. The petitioner could be arrested subsequently only on 15th November, 2020. Learned APP for the State further states that the co-accused were granted bail after the charges were framed against them however, no charge has been framed against the petitioner because supplementary charge-sheet could be filed only after the arrest of the petitioner.
4. The above noted FIR was registered after a PCR call was received regarding a fire at house No.22742, Anaj Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. On reaching the spot the police found that second, third and fourth floor of house No.8273, New Anaj Mandi, Sadar Bazar were engulfed in fire. Rescue team reached the spot and in the incident 45 persons including nine minors lost their lives and 21 persons including six minors were injured. During the course of investigation it was revealed that the building in question was not a single property but two separate properties, that is, 8273/8274, Filmistan, Riyan Building, Anaj Mandi, Delhi. The properties stood in the name of Mohd.Rehan, Mohd.Suhail and the present petitioner Mohd. Imran. The two properties were constructed in a manner that they were interconnected with each other from ground floor to fifth floor. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE BAIL APPLN. 1188/2021 Page 2 of 4 MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:28.05.2021 08:56:20 petitioner and Mohd.Rehan are brothers and Mohd.Suhail is the brother-in-law of Mohd.Rehan. Though Mohd.Rehan and Mohd.Suhail were arrested on 8th December, 2019 and 11th December, 2019 respectively, the petitioner could not be arrested. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail in July, 2020 which was dismissed. Though the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed offender however, a reward of ₹50,000/- for his arrest was announced. The petitioner was arrested on 15th November, 2020 since which date the petitioner is in custody.
5. Since the charges for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC and in alternative under Section 304A IPC have been framed against the co-accused and due to the pandemic there are delays in the trials resulting in delay in framing of charge even against the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner on stringent conditions.
6. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹1 lakh with two surety bonds of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, further subject to the condition that one surety will be of a family member of the petitioner. The petitioner will not leave the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the learned Trial Court and in case of change of residential address and/or mobile phone the same will be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit. Further, in case, the petitioner has any passport, the same will be surrendered to the learned Trial Court within two weeks.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE BAIL APPLN. 1188/2021 Page 3 of 4 MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:28.05.2021 08:56:207. Petition is disposed of.
8. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 27, 2021 'vn' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE BAIL APPLN. 1188/2021 Page 4 of 4 MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:28.05.2021 08:56:20