Case Title: BANADIK and others Versus STATE
Case No: BAIL APPLN. 2211/2022 & CRL.M.As. 34090/2023 & 34091/2023
Decided on: 28th March , 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
Facts of the case
The lawsuit concerns an incident that happened on July 8, 2021, when a number of people pulled over the vehicle belonging to the complainant, Naeem Ahemad, and his nephew, Muneeb. The attackers were initially subdued by the complainant and others, who then left. But a little while later, the assailants reappeared and opened fire, killing two innocent bystanders. According to the prosecution, there were disagreements between Danish and Firojuddin, the accused, and Mohd. Muneeb. Mohd. Muneeb had complained about the accused’s unauthorized construction before the incident. Additionally, it is said that the defendants colluded to intimidate Mohd. Muneeb into settling the dispute or face severe repercussions [T1]. The central theme of the prosecution’s case is the alleged conspiracy involving Firojuddin, Mohd. Danish, and other accused individuals to do harm to Muneeb Mohd. According to the prosecution, the accused got together close to a mosque, planned to assassinate Mohd. Muneeb, and executed their plot. Two bystanders lost their lives as a consequence of gunshot wounds during the incident. Later, two live cartridges and a handgun were found in the possession of Banadik @ Sunny, one of the accused. The prosecution additionally emphasized the accused’s apparent participation in the scheme through call records between them [T6].
Issues
1. Were the appellants seen in the incident’s CCTV footage, and did eyewitness accounts identify them as being present at the crime scene?
2. Does the prosecution’s case mostly rely on Call Data Records (CDRs) to prove the accused parties’ purported conspiracy?
3. Have official accusations been brought against the appellants, raising questions about their fundamental rights, despite their prolonged detention?
4. Is the main goal of detention to guarantee the appellants’ attendance at trial, and is there evidence to suggest that they pose a flight risk?
5. When granted bail to the appellants with certain conditions to prevent misuse of liberty, did the court take into account the presumption of innocence and the principles of personal liberty?
Legal Provisions
The legal provisions involved in this case include sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act, as mentioned in the FIR and the charges against the accused:
1. Indian Penal Code (IPC):
– Sections 186: Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.
– Sections 353: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.
– Section 302: Punishment for murder.
– Section 307: Attempt to murder.
– Section 120B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
– Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
2. Arms Act:
– Sections 25: Punishment for certain offences.
– Section 27: Punishment for using arms.
– Section 54: Power to arrest.
– Section 59: Power to prescribe rules.
Appellant Contentions
The appellants’ absence from the crime scene is indicated by the fact that they were not seen in the CCTV footage of the occurrence. In a comparable instance, one of the appellants was given bail despite being mentioned in the FIR and being detained, implying that they were not directly involved or that there was insufficient evidence against them. The defense contended that the trial court ought to assess the prosecution’s case once all the evidence has been given, as it mostly depends on Call Data Records (CDRs) to prove guilt. The appellants’ prolonged incarceration without formal accusations prompted questions regarding their fundamental rights and the presumption of innocence. There’s no proof that the appellants represent a flight risk , stressing that the goal of imprisonment is to guarantee their appearance at trial a goal that can be accomplished in other ways, as by imposing bail requirements [T6].
Respondent Contentions
The prosecution claims that the case against the appellants is supported by a large amount of evidence that goes beyond CCTV footage, such as witness statements that show animosity between the accused and the victims. The respondents contend that the accused’s communication during the incident is evidenced by the call records, pointing to a planned plot. It is claimed that one of the appellants intimidated a witness who was being held on provisional bail, which prompted the witness to be granted protection and the appellant’s request for an extension of release to be rejected. The respondents stress the significance of taking into account all relevant information, such as call logs and witness statements, in order to prove the accused’s guilt and the existence of a conspiracy. The prosecution draws attention to the gravity of the allegations, which include murder and criminal conspiracy, as justification for refusing bail and making sure that the case’s witnesses are protected [T5].
Court Analysis and Judgement
The appellants were not visible in the CCTV footage of the occurrence, and eyewitnesses did not identify one of the accused as being there at the crime site, according to the court. A major component of the prosecution’s case was the use of Call Data Records (CDRs) to demonstrate the conspiracy; the trial court would assess these records in further detail when the evidence was presented. The appellants have been in jail since July 13, 2021, but the charges against them have not been filed, which raises questions regarding their extended detention and their right to freedom. Citing the significance of personal liberty until proven guilty, the court underlined that the goal of imprisonment is to guarantee the accused’s attendance at trial and not for punitive or preventive measures. The tribunal based on the appellants’ lack of flight risk and granted bail with certain conditions, such as posting a personal bond, staying in the nation without authorization, and other limitations to prevent abuse of freedom. The court emphasized that the trial court was left to evaluate the evidence and decide guilt, and that any observations were only relevant to the bail decision and not indicative of the case’s merits [T1]. All things considered, the court’s decision struck a compromise between the appellants’ right to liberty and the requirement to guarantee trial attendance, establishing guidelines to stop bail abuse while awaiting more legal actions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
Click here to view the judgement
