Delhi HC refuses bail to man accused in IB officer’s murder

NEW DELHI: Applicant has been found involved in several cases of rioting, including the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma, said a Delhi court while dismissing the bail plea of a man who claimed his complicity was shown in riot cases only because he was the neighbourhood’s “bad character”.
Additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav was hearing the bail arguments of Nazim, who sought his release from prison on the ground that his involvement was never proved by the investigating agency.Through his counsel Salim Malik and Sonia Pandey, Nazim further contended that initially the statements of two eye witnesses – Prashant and Harish Chandra – were recorded in the matter and subsequently their supplementary statements were also recorded. However, Nazim’ name was not mentioned in these statements, argued his counsel. Another man, who was stated to be an “interested witness” for he allegedly suffered loss of property, did not name the applicant in his statement initially but was claimed to have identified him as a rioter for his “enmity towards a particular community”.
Special public prosecutor Manoj Chaudhary attributed Nazim’s role to stone pelting and inciting religious feelings to “cause maximum damage to people of the other community”.
At the current stage of the case, the court highlighted that it can’t be said with certainty that Nazim did not have a common object with members of an unlawful assembly. “We are at the pre-cognizance stage and this court has limitations in making an in-depth analysis of the statements of witnesses, which are yet to be tested during trial. Whether he can be convicted in the matter with the aid of Section 149 IPC is a preposterous conclusion at this stage, as the evidence is yet to be led in the matter,” it added.
Further, factors such as gravity of offence and damage to property, the court didn’t find it “a fit case” for grant of bail. “The bail application is accordingly dismissed. It is hereby clarified that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, as the case is at pre-cognizance stage,” the court clarified.