The Delhi High Court Monday granted bail to two men and denied bail to another in connection with the death of an “innocent bystander”, Rahul Solanki, during the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed that the evidence with respect to two accused, Arif and Anish Qureshi, “at best” suggested they were a part of the unlawful assembly, and it was not the prosecution’s case that they were armed with a dangerous weapon.
On Arif, the HC noted that the only additional incriminating allegation against him was that he broke the CCTV camera installed at Pal Dairy. “In my considered view, merely because the applicants were part of an assembly, it cannot be assumed that the common object of the assembly was to commit a murder or that the applicants knew a murder was likely to be committed,” Justice Bansal observed. It also noted that the two had already been granted bail in other riot cases.
“Both applicants have been in judicial custody since March 9, 2020. Till now, the prosecution evidence is yet to commence… Taking into account the fact that the trial is likely to take a long time, the applicants cannot be kept under incarceration for an indefinite period. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and the period of incarceration already suffered by the applicants, this court is inclined to grant bail to the applicants,” Justice Bansal said, ordering them to furnish a personal bond of Rs 35,000 each with one surety of the like amount subject to certain conditions.
On the third accused, Mohd. Mustaqeem, the HC, in a separate order, perused through an eyewitness statement and observed that it appeared the eyewitness had identified Mustaqeem “as the person who shot the bullet which killed the deceased”.
“In light of these statements, it cannot be stated that the applicant has been identified only based on the 10-second mobile phone video clip. As regards the contention of the applicant of there being a discrepancy in the various statements made by the eyewitness, Anil Kumar, and inconclusiveness of FSL reports, the effect thereof… cannot be considered at this stage and can be considered only at the stage of trial on appreciation of evidence,” the HC said.
Justice Bansal also observed that Mustaqeem had refused to participate in the judicial Test Identification Parade (used to allow the eyewitness to an incident to identify the accused). Justice Bansal said on a “prima facie view”, there is material to show Mustaqeem’s involvement in the alleged offences.
“I am in agreement with the submission of the learned SPP that the applicant cannot be granted bail only on account of long incarceration, as the applicant has been charged with offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Considering the… fact that material witnesses are yet to be examined, this court does not find any ground to grant bail to the applicant at this stage,” the HC said, dismissing Mustaqeem’s bail plea.
The high court, in its orders, noted that information was received at Dayalpur police station from GTB Hospital on February 24, 2020, that one Rahul Solanki had received a gunshot injury at Shiv Vihar and was declared dead by the doctor; based on this, an FIR was registered on February 28, 2020.
Eventually, on March 7, 2020, investigation in this case was handed over to SIT Crime Branch. It revealed that Solanki, along with his cousin, who is the eyewitness in the case, had gone to purchase groceries in Pal Dairy Wali gali when they noticed the presence of a large number of rioters with rods, stones, pistols etc. In this commotion, one of the rioters fired upon Solanki, causing his death.
Arif and Anish were arrested on March 9, 2020. Mustaqeem, the high court noted, was not named in the initial FIR but was arrested “based on the information given by an informer pursuant to a reward by the investigating agency” who identified the accused based on his photograph. Mustaqeem was arrayed as an accused through a supplementary chargesheet filed on December 1, 2020, by police.
The trial court, in its March 6 order, framed charges against the trio under various sections of the IPC including 147 (rioting),148 (rioting with armed deadly weapon), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence), 302 (murder) read with section 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object). Additionally, charges were also framed against Mustaqeem for offences under the Arms Act.
With respect to Arif and Anish, the prosecution had invoked Section 149 IPC read with Section 302 IPC to contend that the accused, along with other members of the mob, “had a common intention to commit murder of the deceased”.
With respect to Mustaqeem, the HC noted that the eyewitness in his March 8, 2020, statement had described the former, with a “helmet in one hand and a pistol-like weapon in the other, and who was wearing a blue t-shirt, had fired the bullet”. The prosecution had argued that Mustaqeem had been “categorically” identified by the witness. The accused opposed this, arguing that he had been identified based on a “10-second mobile phone video clip along with screen grabs”.
