Delhi Court grants bail to accused on grounds of parity in Rinku Sharma murder case

New Delhi [India], March 30 (ANI): Delhi’s Rohini Court, recently, granted bail to Aftab, accused in the Rinku Sharma murder case stating that the accused was in custody since February 2021 and some other co-accused persons have been granted bail in the matter.

Rinku Sharma was allegedly murdered in February 2021 in the Mangolpuri area of Delhi. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Neeraj Gaur of Rohini District court granted bail to Aftab on the condition of furnishing a personal bond of 35,000 rupees and one surety bond in the like amount.

The ASJ Gaur said, “Considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the scale is tilted towards the liberty of the accused.”

“I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant/accused”, the judge said in the order passed on March 27.

While granting bail, the court imposed the condition that the applicant shall not tamper with evidence in any manner and shall not try to influence the witnesses directly or indirectly.

In case of a change of the applicant’s residential address, he shall intimate the Court about the same. The applicant/accused shall not reside in the area Of Mangolpuri, the court said.

The court after considering the arguments, said that the allegations against the accused are serious in nature. However, he has been in custody for a considerable time. As such, his liberty is at stake and the court needs to examine for how long his liberty should be curtailed.

“The FSL result has not been received so far. There are practically remote prospects of examining the public witnesses in the near future”, the court observed.
The public witnesses have not been examined but the reason, therefore, has been beyond the control of the court.

The non-examination of public witnesses cannot be made an absolute ground to deny bail. Moreover, stringent conditions can be imposed in this regard. Similarly, the seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of the offence is also not absolute ground to deny bail.

The court is to strike a balance between the liberty guaranteed to the accused persons and the rights of the victims, the judge said in the order.

It was submitted by Advocate Ravi Drall, counsel for the accused that the accused is in custody since 11.02.2021. The charge has been framed. No public witness has been examined so far for want of the FSL result.

Only a formal witness has been examined so far. The prosecution has cited 46 witnesses and the number of witnesses will be increased on the filing of a supplementary chargesheet of the FSL result, the counsel argued.

Advocate Drall also argued that the applicant has been implicated by invoking Section 149 (Unlawful Assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was submitted that to invoke a constructive liability against the applicant]accused u/s 149 IPC, there must be some common object and mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable.

It was argued that in the CCTV footage of the incident, it can be seen that the applicant/accused was not armed With any danda. It is submitted that these facts clearly show that he did not share any common object. “The murderous” injury was allegedly inflicted by Mehtab by using a knife.
It is argued that no one from the side of the accused persons was armed with any knife and it has been visible in the CCTV footage that it was the deceased Rinku who initially lifted a gas cylinder.

Then he brought a knife from his house. It is argued that it was the deceased and his associates who were aggressors.

It was also argued that the applicant/accused was the most involved in giving beatings to the deceased Rinku Sharma but he is not vicariously liable for the sudden act of stabbing allegedly committed by Mehtab.

It was argued that the co-accused Tajuddin and Islam alias Faizal have been granted bail and on the ground of parity, the accused is also entitled to bail.
The bail application was opposed by the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) and the Counsel for the complainant on the ground that the allegations are serious in nature.

The Counsel argued that the genesis of the dispute was a fight between co-accused Jahid alias Faizal alias Chingu with a person named Sachin. In order to take revenge on Sachin, all the accused persons conspired together. They could not find Sachin and they decided to teach a lesson to the deceased Rinku.

The APP argued that Rinku was dragged from his house and was stabbed at some distance from his house. Besides the family of the deceased, there are several independent public witnesses who have implicated the applicant besides other accused persons.

It is argued that there has been a threat in the locality of communal violence and bail may not be granted.

During the course of arguments, the videos of the CCTV footage were played to demonstrate that the applicant/accused was a part of the unlawful assembly which attacked the deceased and out of whom, co-accused Mehtab alias Natu suddenly stabbed the deceased.

It was argued by the accused’s counsel that the CCTV footage played in the court today, clearly shows that the co-accused Mehtab suddenly came with a knife and the sudden act done by him should not be fastened with the applicant/accused.
It is further argued by the Defence counsel that on the one hand, the complainant is alleging that the primary target was Sachin due to some previous quarrel. On the other hand, the complainant is trying to give a communal spin to the incident.