Rinku Sharma murder case: 2 accused get bail from Delhi court

Police had said Rinku got into an argument with the accused at a birthday party, and they later went to his house and allegedly stabbed him. While the police had stated that Sharma was killed over a food business rivalry, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad alleged that Sharma was killed for collecting funds for the Ram Mandir.

The court observed that Tajuddin had filed for bail last year but it was dismissed. “There are practically remote prospects of examining public witnesses in the near future. Considering the developments… since the dismissal of the last bail application and further considering the lapse of five months since then, I am inclined to consider the second bail application,” read the order.

The court also said the accused has been in jail for two years and the public witnesses, around 46, have not been examined. “Non-examination of public witnesses cannot be made an absolute ground to deny all bail applications… The court is to strike a balance between liberty guaranteed to accused persons and rights of the victims. Considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the scale is tilted towards the liberty of the accused…,” read the order.

On March 3, the court ordered the release of Tajuddin on bail with a few conditions.

Tajuddin (40) worked as a Delhi Home guard for over 15 years. His counsel, Advocate Ravi Drall, argued that his name wasn’t in the initial complaint or FIR and came up later in the supplementary statement.
Speaking to The Indian Express, Drall alleged: “There are serious lapses in police investigation. Also, Tajuddin was not even present at the scene during the incident. He was arrested because he had come to the hospital where Sharma was admitted.”

Islam was released on bail on March 3 by the court.

The court observed that the accused has been in custody for a considerable time and again; neither the FSL report nor the witnesses’ statements have been produced. “The victim has shown apprehension of threats. The copies of the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant pertain to June 2022. LD Counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant/accused undertakes not to reside in the Mangolpuri area and he will shift somewhere else away from the residence of the complainant,” said the court before granting bail.

His counsel claimed he was only present at the crime scene as a “spectator”.

Police did not comment and said the case is sub-judice. The other accused are still in jail.