A sessions court last week denied bail to a guy charged in a rioting and murder case linked to the Delhi riots of February 2020 who had surrendered on the grounds that he was a “flight risk” [State v. Mohd Imran].

The accused had previously been labelled a proclaimed offender, giving him little choice but to surrender, according to Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat.

As a result, he cannot simply claim that he surrendered to the Court to demonstrate his good behaviour. His appeal for anticipatory bail was denied, leaving him with little choice except to surrender. According to the judge, the accused’s actions plainly demonstrate that he is a flight risk.

The accused’s bail application was filed in a case involving the alleged murder of a man with a sharp-edged weapon during the rioting in Delhi’s north-east.

Despite the police allegation that he was a member of an unlawful assembly that participated in rioting, the accused’s lawyer contended that he was not there at the time of the incident. It was brought to his attention that the local police had been visiting to his residence and summons him to the police station without providing him with any written notice.

The lawyer further claimed that a police report filed before the Karkardooma District and Sessions Judge on November 21, 2020, in response to an accused’s plea, revealed that there was no case against him at the police station in question.

The accused learned that the police were hunting for him only when a Magistrate Court made a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On July 22, 2021, a judge rejected his anticipatory bail application, thus he filed a plea of surrender, which he did on September 14, 2021. The bail application before Judge Rawat also requested parity with two other defendants who had already been granted bail.

The prosecution, on the other hand, alleged that the accused had been shot in the violence, implying that he was present at the crime site. According to the prosecution, he was also refusing to cooperate in the inquiry that culminated in a non-bailable warrant against him and later a proclamation.

The Court ruled that the accused’s counsel’s claim that his client’s name was not listed in the FIR was irrelevant because it was simply a preliminary report leading to an investigation that revealed the role of the accused.

Furthermore, the fact that the current accused was deemed a proclaimed criminal was stated to be a “crucial” difference between the co-accused who were given bail. The Court stated, “I do not see any cause to enlarge the applicant/accused Mohd. Imran on bail.” The accused was defended by Nasir Ali, while the State was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Anuj Handa.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here