LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


  • Casting serious doubts on credibility of two police witnesses, the Delhi Court on Tuesday granted bail to two persons accused in north-east Delhi riots.
  • Applicant Amit Goswami was granted bail on the ground of parity.
  • The FIR was registered on march 2nd,2020 the basis of complaint made by Mohammad Aslam for vandalizing, looting and setting his shop on fire in the main market on February 25th, 2020.
  • The two co-accused have already been granted bail on the ground of parity on 18/09/2020 and 30/09/2020.


  • The complaint was registered under sec. 147, 148, 149, 457, 435, 436, 454 and 38 of IPC. As per the complainant, it was argued that the complainant is entitled to bail as the two other co-accused have been granted bail by this court in September 2020 on the ground of parity.
  • The second argument was that the applicant was not named in the FIR, neither was any role was assigned to him in the matter of rioting. No CCTV footage is presented to prove the matter against the complainant.
  • It was alleged that Constable Yogesh and Constable Bhagirath are planted witnesses due to the fact that they did not report the incident on the day the incident happened, i.e; 25/02/2020, and the complaint was registered on 02/03/2020.
  • The final argument of the applicant was that the investigation has been completed in the matter at concern and chargesheet has been filed, making no sense in keeping the complainant for custodial interrogation.
  • As far as the case of the state is concerned, it was argued that the applicant was part of a riotous mob and was an active participant chanting slogans against the other community and was indulged in anti-national activities.
  • The public prosecutor submitted that the constables indentified the complainant in the date and time when the incident happened, however, he was not specifically named.


  • The court in the matter at hand has laid emphasis on the fact that the applicant’s name was not specified in the complaint and no CCTV footage was presented.

“Applicant has neither been specifically named in the FIR nor there is any CCTV footage/video­clip of the incident in question available on record. The applicant appears to have been arrested in the matter merely on the basis of disclosure statement.”

  • On the question that whether or not the complainant was identified by the said constables on the day the incident happened, the court observed that the police witnesses could not be relied upon. Questioning the conduct of the constables, the Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav said- “This Court is not able to comprehend as to why said Beat Constables waited till 17.04.2020, i.e; the date of recording of their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the IO to name the applicant, when they had categorically seen and identified the applicant indulging in riots on the date of incident.”
  • The learned judge observed that the manner in which the police have acted casts a serious doubt on the credibility of the police witnesses.


  • The court keeping in view the circumstances of case observed that the applicant deserves bail in the matter on the ground of parity with two co­accused persons.
  • The court granted bail to Amit Goswami on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety subject to the condition that he shall maintain peace and harmony in the locality.


"Loved reading this piece by Pallavi Singh?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  25  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query