|
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Vikas Bharti, accused in a robbery and murder case of a money changer, after he spent six and a half years in custody.
The case dates back to 2018 when Rakesh Jain, a money changer from Chandni Chowk, was robbed and killed. The prosecution alleged that Bharti and his associates hatched a conspiracy to commit the crime. An FIR was lodged in the police Station in Shahdara in the year 2018. Justice Vikas Mahajan granted bail to Vikas Bharti on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 and a surety bond of the same amount. Justice Mahajan said, "The present petitioner has been in custody for the last six and a half years, and the prosecution has cited as many as 43 witnesses, of which only 13 have been examined. Thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time, and the circumstances of the present case do not warrant keeping the petitioner incarcerated to await the outcome of trial." The court noted that out of 43 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 13 have been examined, indicating a lengthy trial process. While granting bail to the accused, Vikas Bharti, Justice Mahajan stated that keeping Bharti incarcerated for an extended period does not warrant the circumstances of the case. "So far as other involvements of the present petitioner are concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is in custody in any of the said cases. Even otherwise, the involvement in other cases cannot be the sole criteria for rejecting the bail application of the petitioner," Justice Mahajan said in the order of March 12. Bharti's counsel, Advocate Akshay Bhandari, argued that the witness of the Test Identification Parade (TIP) had passed away before the testimony was recorded. It was also submitted that the co-accused Mohd Taj and Mohd Shavej had already been granted regular bail on account of the demise of the TIP witness prior to the recording of his testimony. Since the co-accused have been granted bail, due to the non-availability of the TIP witness, the benefit of parity may be extended to the present petitioner, counsel added. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, arguing that Bharti's role in the crime was different from that of the co-accused and that he was driving the motorcycle involved in the incident. He further submitted that during the TIP, the witness not only identified the present petitioner but also assigned him a specific role. APP opposed the arguements for parity and submitted that the benefit of parity of the bail order of co-accused Mohd Taj and Mohd Shavej cannot be extended to the present petitioner since the role of the present petitioner is different from the said accused persons. Further, he submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the said two co-accused had proceeded to the place of incident, unlike the petitioner, who was driving the motorcycle, which the co-accused Ajay alias Kalia also rode as pillion, who fired the pistol shot. However, the court held that involvement in other cases cannot be the sole criterion for rejecting bail. (ANI)
|
