Court grants bail to riots accused, says there’s no electronic evidence

A Delhi court on Tuesday granted bail to a man accused in a north-east Delhi riots case, while stating that there is no electronic evidence against him. The court also said while in the charge sheet the complainant has said that he was shot in the left leg , the FIR had said that he was shot in the right leg.

Additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav granted bail to Imran, who was accused of rioting and attempt to murder on a complaint by one constable Deepak, on a bail bond of ₹20,000, while observing that the accused was not named in the FIR.

The judge also said there is no CCTV footage of the incident available, wherein the accused could have been seen to be a part of the “riotous mob”.

Imran was arrested on March 18 in connection with the rioting that took place in Bhajanpura area. Later, on the basis of his “disclosure statement”, he was arrested for shooting constable Deepak in his leg.

The court said the investigating agency has failed to provide the call detail records (CDR) location of the accused, placing him at the scene of the crime on the date of incident. It said that even the“test identification parade (TIP) of the accused was not conducted by the police.

The judge said the complainant was discharged on the same day from the hospital and the injuries suffered by him were stated to be “simple” in nature.

“A perusal of the examination report (charge sheet) of complainant constable Deepak reveals that he was medically treated for the gunshot injuries sustained in his left leg, whereas in the FIR, he had stated that he suffered gunshot injuries in his right leg,” the court said in its order of September 1.

The judge noted that the accused was not arrested from the scene of crime; instead, he has been picked up merely on the basis of his disclosure statement made in another FIR. The judge said that besides this disclosure statement, “prima facie there is no direct evidence to connect him with the incident”.

“….there is no electronic evidence on record against the applicant. The investigation in the matter is complete. There is no public witness cited in the case, whom the applicant can threaten or intimidate,” the judge said while granting bail.