New Delhi (ILNS): The Delhi High Court has denied bail to an accused in the Delhi riots case for allegedly being part of the mob that burned a shop Anil Sweet Corner as well as a waiter, Dilbar Negi, along with it.
The shop, Anil Sweet Corner, at Chaman Park, Main Brijpuri Road was burned and the charred body of Negi, a resident of Uttarakhand, who used to work as a waiter there, was found in the godown of the shop later.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, while pronouncing his order, noted:
“It is prima facie clear that the applicant was part of the unlawful assembly which was responsible for putting on fire the godown in which Dilbar Singh Negi was and after that he was burnt alive and was found dead (burnt alive)…”
The bail application was filed by Ashraf Ali, seeking regular bail on the grounds that the case against the petitioner relies on identification by a single witness, Himanshu, that too in the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP).
The Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that even as per Himanshu, the mob consisted of 200-250 persons wherein he identified only 5 persons. It is settled law that identification of a few select persons in a large mob, by a witness, in the absence of a TIP, cannot inspire the confidence of the Court, said the counsel.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the state, contended that Himanshu is an eyewitness, who has specifically named the present accused/applicant, by name, his role, and his presence at the spot up-to late hours.
However, on the issue of TIP, the bench observed that the test is generally not necessary to identify the accused if the witness knows the accused and can recognize the accused in moonlight and lantern.
Read Also: How to Write a Legal Contract
The bench dismissed the bail application while stating that the accused were involved in the heinous crime/offense where the deceased person died and when a person died then section 302 IPC automatically attracted.
The bench further clarified that the trial court shall not get influenced by the observations made by this Court while passing this order.
-ILNS