February 17, 2021 1:22:26 am
OBSERVING THAT he was not in the vicinity of the violence-affected area on the date of incident, the Delhi High Court Tuesday granted bail to a person accused of being part of a group of anti-CAA protesters who allegedly murdered a police official last year. The court said there is also no CCTV footage or video which implicates the accused.
Danish, a cab driver working with a Gurgaon firm on contractual basis through a vendor, was arrested by Nandnagri Police personnel on March 10, 2020 when he was on way to meet a customer. He was then taken to the Crime Branch, Lodhi Road.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait took note of the Call Detail Record (CDR) of Danish, a Ghaziabad resident, and said he remained at the location of his relatives and siblings in Khajuri Khas, Karawal Nagar Road, Chandbagh area on February 24, 2020 “without any tangible change of location”.
“It seems from the CDR details of the petitioner that on the date of incident, i.e. 24.02.2020, he was not even in the vicinity of the violence affected area i.e. Main Wazirabad Road,” the court said in the order.
The single bench said he was named in the disclosure statements on March 11 by co-accused Muhammad Yunus and Muhammad Ayyub but there is no CDR entry which can show any call record between the people disclosing his name and him. Their statements were recorded on the same date when a “disclosure statement” of Danish was made during the police custody, the court said, while also noting they were arrested too on the same date. “Besides that, one accused, namely Furqan, is a resident of Gali No 5, Chandbagh and he names Danish as a neighbour, which is contrary for the reason that the petitioner is not a resident of Chandbagh,” the order read.
The court also said the initial statements, which were recorded on February 27 last year under Section 161 CrPC, of beat constable Gyan and constable Sunil do not name Danish, and it was after 12 days that the name of the accused appeared in their supplementary statement recorded on March 10, 2020.
“Moreover, there are three public witnesses in this case and none of them have named the petitioner formally in their respective statements,” it said, adding that the accused deserves bail as the chargesheet has already been filed and he is no more required for investigation.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines