SURAJ Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application, preferred under Sec. 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter 'BNSS'), the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 70/2021, registered at Police Station Badarpur, Delhi, for offences punishable under Ss. 302/392/394/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter 'IPC') and Ss. 27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 29/1/2021, an information regarding MLC No. 58/2021 of Mr. Rajesh Mehto had been received at Police Station Badarpur, New Delhi from Apollo Hospital, concerning stab injuries on the body of the injured. Upon receiving the information, the police staff had reached Apollo Hospital, where the doctors had informed them that the patient was unfit to give a statement and, due to his serious condition, he was being referred to Safdarjung Hospital for further treatment. In view of these circumstances, an FIR had initially been registered for offence under Ss. 307/34 of IPC. However, on 30/1/2021, while undergoing treatment at Safdarjung Hospital, the victim Rajesh Mehto had succumbed to his injuries, and upon further investigation, his family members had informed the police that his mobile phone was also missing. As a result, the provisions of Ss. 397/302/34 of IPC had been invoked in the case. During further investigation, it had come to light that the robbed mobile phone of the deceased had been traced to Mangolpuri area in Delhi, and was recovered from the possession of one Ravi. Upon interrogation, Ravi had revealed that he had purchased the mobile phone from one Nitin. Subsequently, Nitin had been traced at Ravi's instance and interrogated, where he revealed that he had purchased the said mobile phone from one Ritik. Further investigation had led to the discovery that Ritik had obtained the phone from one Pradeep @ Bittoo, a resident of Badarpur. The accused Pradeep @ Bittoo had been arrested from his residence, and at his instance, his two associates, namely Suraj S/o Ratan Singh and the present applicant, Suraj @ Devender, had also been apprehended. Upon sustained interrogation, the accused persons had disclosed their respective roles in the commission of offence. They had revealed that they were habitual drinkers and drug users, and on 29/1/2021, at around 10 pm, after consuming alcohol, they wanted to smoke ganja but they had no money. To fund their plan, they had decided to commit robbery. While standing on the footpath on the Mathura Road towards Faridabad, opposite Tata Motors Showroom, they had spotted the victim walking from Badarpur Village towards Gautampuri. When the victim had reached near them, accused Pradeep @ Bittoo had pulled him into the bushes, while the present applicant, Suraj @ Devender, had restrained him, and accused Suraj S/o Ratan Singh had robbed his mobile phone and wallet. At that moment, accused Suraj S/o Ratan Singh had recognized the victim as a resident of their locality and, fearing that he might report them to the police, they had decided to eliminate him. The accused persons had then stabbed the victim multiple times with a knife, which they had been carrying. After leaving the victim in a pool of blood, the accused persons had fled the scene, disposing of the blood-stained knife under a flyover. During the course of the investigation, the police had recovered the murder weapon, the clothes worn by the accused at the time of the incident, as well as the robbed mobile phone and wallet, at their instance.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no connection with the alleged offence. It is argued that the applicant has already spent 04 years in judicial custody, and since the police has completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet, his continued incarceration is not required. It is further argued that the forensic evidence (FSL report) does not support the prosecution's case, as no blood was detected on the clothes of the present applicant, which contradicts the allegations against him. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, and there is no eyewitness who had seen the applicant herein with the deceased immediately before the incident, and therefore, there is a clear absence of direct evidence or any recovery linking the applicant to the alleged offence. In such circumstances, keeping the applicant in custody during trial amounts to punitive incarceration, which is against the principles of criminal jurisprudence and the right to liberty. Furthermore, it is argued that the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution lacks authenticity, as it is not supported by a certificate under Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, no notice under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. was issued to Kia Motors to obtain the footage, and no statement under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded from the person providing it, rendering the footage inadmissible and unreliable. It is also pointed out that even if the said CCTV footage is considered, the same is of the vicinity of the place of incident and it discloses nothing against the present applicant. Thus, on these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be granted regular bail.