Allowed

Firdaush v. State

Delhi HC3 Jul 2018BAIL APPLN./1083/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted to a petitioner accused of murder charged on circumstantial evidence. The court noted gaps in the prosecution case and mobile call records that did not conclusively establish association at the critical time, distinguishing the neighbor relationship as non-incriminating. Petitioner released on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to bail on a personal bond of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

Firdaush Vs State — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~12

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 1083/2018

¶4

FIRDAUSH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kushdeep Guar and Ms. Megha Bahl, Advs. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aasha Tiwari, APP with SI Ranvir Singh, P.S. Fatehpuri Beri. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK O R D E R % 03.07.2018

¶5

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that whole case is based on circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution version, petitioner was last seen with the deceased by PW2 Gujjar Ramesh at about 9:30 pm on 18^th November, 2016. As per this witness, petitioner and deceased went inside the Flat No. 33 of the petitioner on 18^th November, 2016 at about 9:30 pm. Other circumstance, as propounded by the prosecution, is that deceased was having illicit relations with the wife of petitioner which was the motive to commit murder of the deceased by petitioner. Further that brother of

¶6

deceased Haroon (PW4) as well as PW2 Gujjar Ramesh @ Bahadur have already been examined and have not supported the prosecution. PW4 Haroon has stated that no illicit relation was there between deceased and wife of petitioner. PW2 Gujjar Ramesh has categorically deposed that he had not seen the deceased with the petitioner.

¶7

Learned APP submits that CDRs of mobile phones of the deceased and petitioner show that they were together in the intervening of 18^th and 19^th November, 2016.

¶8

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and deceased were neighbours as is evident from the statement of PW4 Haroon, accordingly, there was nothing unusual if the location of their mobile phones was same. It is further contended that CDRs otherwise do not show that petitioner and deceased were in the same locality at about 9:57 pm on 18^th November, 2016. Locations of both the mobile phones were, in fact, different. Petitioner is in custody for the last 19 months, therefore, may be released on bail.

¶9

Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial

¶10

court.

¶11

Bail application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶12

Dasti.

¶13

A.K. PATHAK, J.

¶14

JULY 03, 2018 ga

Firdaush v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firdaush v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Mohan Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Ajay & Ors. Vs Sangeeta

Ajay Soni & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.

Karan Yadav & Ors. Vs State(Nct of Delhi)& Anr.

Imran @ Mannu Vs State

Rajesh Vs State (Nct of Delhi)