Delhi High Court rejects bail application of Vishan Singh, the accused in a case of murder, robbery, and criminal conspiracy under Sections 302, 394, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with charges under the Arms Act. The application was made under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The crime was committed on 27th October 2016, when the deceased Shakir Teetar was discovered with a gunshot wound to the neck in Harsh Vihar, Delhi. During investigation, a long-standing grudge between two groups of Village Daus Ras was found. An eye-witness, Hakim, declared that the petitioner invited the deceased in the name of friendship to an isolated area and subsequently arranged for his murder. The co-accused and petitioner were apprehended in a related offence under the Arms Act, having confessed participation.

Call detail records revealed frequent communication between the petitioner and his associates prior to, during, and after the murder. The weapon, which was recovered, was ballistically matched to the fatal bullet that killed the victim.

   

The petitioner's lawyer submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated on the basis of the untrustworthy evidence of Hakim, who had not mentioned the petitioner in the primary FIR and whose statement was inconsistent. The defense asserted no ballistic report identified the recovered weapon as compared to the bullets and no mobile phone of the petitioner was recovered. The criminal record of the petitioner was brought to the fore, indicating exploitation by the prosecution under faction rivalry. The advocate further argued that the petitioner was in jail for more than six years with slow trial proceedings infringing on the right to a speedy trial as per Article 21. Interim bail was also granted during the COVID-19 period and the petitioner adhered to conditions.

The prosecution utilized the eyewitness identification of the petitioner and co-accused as being perpetrators. They highlighted the recovery of the weapon and ballistic verification connecting it to the murder. The petitioner's own admission of being involved in the connected Arms Act case was placed before the court as pivotal evidence. The prosecution submitted that lengthy custody by itself cannot warrant bail in such a heinous offense with an admitted attacker who refused judicial identification parade.

The court held the murder to be premeditated and deliberate with the active role of the petitioner. It acquiesced that the eyewitness testimony had established a strong prima facie case that would be put to trial. The court noted that the report of ballistic and recovery of weapons provided significant support to prosecution charges.

The court differentiated the petitioner from co-accused who had been allowed bail, considering his more serious involvement. Therefore, the application for bail was rejected. The court explained that this decision does not speak of the merits of the case but is restricted to the issue of bail.