[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Rizwan @ Shahrukh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 July, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 451/2025
RIZWAN @ SHAHRUKH
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. U.M. Tripathi, Ms. Utsa
Srivastav and Ms. Priya, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for
the State with SI Deepak Kumar P.S.
Jahangir Puri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 10.07.2025
1. First Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C/ Section 483 BNSS
has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner Rizwan @ Shahrukh for grant of
Regular bail in case FIR No.514/2018 under Section
302/392/365/396/397/412/201/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station
Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
2. The case of the Prosecution is that on 12.11.2018 an information
about the incident was received through a PCR call at about 10:19 A.M.
D.D No.17A was registered and SI Suresh Hiwarkar visited House No.H-
3/1215, First Floor, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where he found one man i.e. Dr.
Mukm Ahmad Iqbal, aged about 63 years, lying dead on the bed with a
dagger lying near his head. The almirahs of the room had been opened and
articles were found scattered. Crime Team was called. The FIR
No.514/2018 was registered.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/07/2025 at 22:54:07
3. During the investigations, nine accused were arrested and on
completion of investigations, Chargesheet was filed.
4. The Bail is sought on the grounds that on 27.09.2022, part
examination-in-chief of PW1 was recorded, but since then she has not come
forth for cross-examination despite best efforts of the Prosecution. More
than two years have elapsed and no other witness has been examined. The
Trial has been prolonged for no reason attributable to the Accused. The
Applicant is in Judicial Custody for more than six years. There are 36
Prosecution witnesses and the trial is likely to take long to be concluded.
The incarceration of the Accused is violative of his right to liberty under
Article 21 of Constitution of India.
5. It is further submitted that the Applicant had promptly opted to go for
his Face Recognition Test in Order to corroborate CCTV footage. No finger
prints were generated from the place of incident in order to match it with
those of the Applicant and other accused persons which creates a doubt
about the Prosecution story.
6. The CCTV footage was examined in FSL, but it has failed to identify
the face of the Applicant and other accused persons, which raises a doubt
about the Prosecution story regarding the commission of the offence by the
Applicant. PW1 in her examination-in-chief has stated that the assailants
were in muffled face and she could not identify the accused persons.
Pertinently, No Identification Parade of the accused persons was conducted.
7. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was arrested by the Police on
19.11.2018 and since then he is in Judicial Custody. The allegations made
against him are false and frivolous. Nothing has been recovered from his
possession and the alleged recovery of money and jewellery had been
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/07/2025 at 22:54:07
planted by the Police officials. There is no eye witnesses to the incident and
the case of the Prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence.
8. A prayer is, therefore, made that the Petitioner be granted Bail.
9. The Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein it is
submitted that the CCTV cameras installed in the house of the deceased
were analyzed and three persons were seen entering and exiting with bags in
their hand. The DVR of CCTV Camera was seized.
10. The Statement of Sofiya, daughter of the deceased was recorded in
part. She was working as a Guest Teacher in Sarvodya Rani Chensemma
Kanya Vidalaya, D-Block, Jahangir Puri. The deceased was running his
Clinic on the Ground Floor of his house, while the First and Second Floor
were being used for residence. Her mother had expired in the year 2014.
11. The three accused were identified on the basis of CCTV footage and
secret information. The three accused who entered the house were identified
as Vishal @ Bunty, Rizwan @ Nesty and the Applicant Rizwan @
Shahrukh.
12. During the investigations, other co-accused who had participated in
the commission of offence, had been arrested. Recovery was effected of
cash and jewelry from seven accused.
13. From the present Accused cash of Rs.1.94 lakhs, one necklace, two
ear rings and two gold bangles were recovered. The jewelry was correctly
identified by the Complainant Sofiya in the TIP proceedings. 3-4 days prior
to the murder, the Complainant had identified seen the Applicant along with
other two co-accused Rizwan and Vishal, roaming around in the park near
her house.
14. It is further stated that out of 40 Prosecution witnesses, one witness
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/07/2025 at 22:54:07
has been examined in part. Bail is opposed on the ground that the Applicant
may flee from the process of law.
15. Learned counsel on behalf of the Applicant has argued that out of
nine accused against whom the Chargesheet was filed, one was JCL, who
has already been acquitted. Five other co-accused have been granted Bail.
He along with two other accused, are the only ones who are languishing in
Jail since November, 2018. The Prosecution is likely to take long.
16. The Complainant who was partly examined in the year 2022 is now
based in Spain and has not been coming forth for her testimony. The
jewellery and the money which is allegedly shown to have been recovered
from the Applicant was done after five days of the alleged offence and that
too, had been planted in his house by the Police.
17. It is submitted that on the ground of parity as well as the delay and
also considering that he has not been identified in the CCTV Camera
footage by the Complainant in her examination-in-chief since it is stated that
the assailants were in muffled face, no fruitful purpose would be served in
keeping the Applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is, therefore, submitted
that the Applicant/Petitioner be granted Bail.
18. The learned Prosecutor has opposed the Bail on the ground of
heinousness of the crime and the role of the Applicant. It is asserted that the
Applicant along with other two co-accused, was seen entering and exiting
the house with a bag. They had remained in the house for 40 minutes. The
crime of dacoity and murder was found to have been committed and it is for
the Applicant to explain his role while he was inside the house in terms of
Section 106 Indian Evidence Act.
19. It is further submitted that the five accused who have been admitted to
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/07/2025 at 22:54:07
Bail are those who did not enter the premises. The Applicant and the other
two accused are in Jail, who in fact had entered the premises and have not
been granted Bail. Therefore, no parity with the other accused persons, can
be claimed.
20. Submissions heard and record perused.
21. The Applicant/Petitioner along with the two other co-accused, were
the persons who had entered into the house, where the alleged offence of
dacoity, murder etc. took place.
22. The main evidence against the Applicant was the CCTV Camera, but
the FSL has reported that on account of low resolution of the camera, they
were unable to identify the persons seen in the CCTV Cameras. However,
no conclusion can be drawn on this basis about the identity of the Applicant
as it has been rightly argued on behalf of the State that the Report of the FSL
is only corroborative and there is other evidence to establish the identity of
the accused persons.
23. The Applicant is in Judicial Custody since 2018 and there are 40
Prosecution witnesses to be examined and only one Prosecution witness has
been partly examined in the year 2022. The Complainant PW2 Sofiya is
now residing in Spain and has not been coming to the Court for completing
her evidence. It is evident that despite the Applicant being in custody for
about 7 years, not even one Prosecution witness has been completely
examined. The trial is likely to take long. No fruitful purpose would be
served in detaining the Applicant in the Jail any further.
24. The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC
308 famously held that the “basic rule is bail and not jail, except where
there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice…” Recently, the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/07/2025 at 22:54:07
Apex Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra
(2020) 14 SCC 12 has reiterated the principle that Bail is rule and jail is
exception.
25. In the totality of circumstances, the Applicant is admitted to Regular
bail, on the following conditions :
a) The Applicant shall furnish a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- and one surety of the like amount, subject to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court;
b) The Applicant shall appear before the Court as and when the
matter is taken up for hearing;
c) The Applicant shall provide mobile number to the IO
concerned which shall be kept in working condition;
d) The Applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and
shall not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the
evidence;
e) In case of change of the residential address, the same shall be
intimated to this Court and in the Police Station, by the Applicant.
26. A copy of this Order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent as well as to the learned Trial Court, for compliance.
27. The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of while making it clear
that observations made herein are only limited for the purpose of grant of
bail.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
JULY 10, 2025/va
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/07/2025 at 22:54:07
[ad_2]
Source link