The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, granted bail to the accused in a murder and robbery case registered under the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act, citing the non-availability of such a witness during trial who identified the accused in Test Identification Parade (TIP) will, of course, ensure the benefit to the accused while considering his bail plea.
The alleged incident occurred when the deceased, returning from his business of exchanging old and soiled currency notes in Chandni Chowk. The accused, alongside co-conspirators, allegedly hatched a plan to rob the victim, knowing he carried large amounts of cash. Co-accused attempted to rob the victim’s scooty, but when the victim resisted, Co-accused shot him and together they fled the scene on a motorcycle.
The defence counsel for the applicant stated that the only incriminating evidence against the petitioner includes a Test Identification Parade (TIP), CCTV footage, Call Detail Records (CDRs), and location data.
However, the defence Counsel raised the concern over the TIP evidence pointing out that the key witness in the TIP process had passed away before deposing before the Ld. Trial Court and his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. would not be admissible in evidence and placed reliance in Vinod @ Nasmulla Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh.
As per Contra, the state argued that whether the TIP in the absence of testimony of TIP witness is admissible or not cannot be gone to at this stage and further stated that during the TIP not only the witness had identified the present petitioner but had assigned to him a specific role and further submits that there was no occasion for the police to show the present petitioner or his photograph to the TIP witness, in as much as the petitioner at the relevant time was in judicial custody.
The Court noted that it is not in dispute that the witness of TIP has passed away prior to recording of his testimony. The probative value of the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of the said witness will be considered by the ld. Trial court at the stage of trial.
The Court further remarked that, but, the very fact that one of the major incriminating circumstances pressed against the present petitioner is the TIP, therefore, the non-availability of such witness will, of course, ensure to the benefit of the petitioner while considering his bail plea.
In light of the facts presented and considering the petitioner’s 6½ years in custody, the lengthy trial timeline, and some substantial submissions of the Defence Counsel that the location chart does not conclusively establish petitioner’s presence at the place of incident at the time of incident, the court decided to grant regular bail
Akshay Bhandari, Kushal Kumar, Anmol Sachdeva, Megha Saroa and Janak Raj Ambawat represented the accused.
