Nadeem v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. The present Petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking regular bail in FIR No. 82/2020 Police Station Narela Industrial Area, Delhi registered under Sections 302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC, 1860”).

2. It is submitted in the present petition that the FIR was registered on 13.02.2020 on the complaint of Shri Mohan Lal Delu on the basis of the false and fabricated facts.

3. The petitioner has claimed that he was not present at the time of commission of offence as he had gone to Pooth Khurd at Maharishi Valmiki Digitally Hospital for the treatment of his ailing daughter at the time of alleged commission of offence. The only allegations made against him are of Section 201 of IPC, 1860.

4. It is claimed that the petitioner has no involvement in the present case. He belongs to a well-off family and does not have any criminal antecedent. Earlier, he had been granted interim bail for marriage of his real brother vide Order dated 18.05.2022. He was again granted interim bail for performing the last rites of her mother vide Order dated 13.09.2022. The petitioner had not flouted the conditions of both the interim bails and surrendered himself on time before the Jail Authority.

5. Further, no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. There is no likelihood of his hampering the investigations or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a young person of impressible age and his incarceration would impact his future, if he is kept with the hardened criminals in jail. He undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed. Therefore, the regular bail has been sought.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the present petition by contending that the petitioner had equal complicity in the commission of murder.

8. She has submitted that the petitioner had arranged the weapon of offence and given it to the main accused, Mohammad Sikander. Though the petitioner was not named in the present FIR, but there is sufficient evidence to establish his complicity in the present offence as he has been the co-conspirator. Moreover, there were blood stains on the clothes of the Digitally petitioner which were recovered and sent to FSL which have given the Report confirming that the blood stains found on the cloths of the petitioner matched with blood of the deceased.

9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the testimony of only four prosecution witnesses has been recorded, while the testimony of eight prosecution witnesses still remain. Therefore, it is submitted that the present petition be dismissed.

10. Submissions heard.

11. As per the Chargesheet, main accused, Mohammad Sikander in conspiracy with the petitioner-Nadeem and other named persons had been planning to commit the murder of his uncle, Zakir Hussain as he wanted to marry his daughter to which he was not agreeable.

12. Further, Smt. Rahima Bibi, wife of deceased Zakir Hussain, suspected his husband to be having a love affair with one Manju, mother-in-law of the deceased-Zakir Hussain and thus she was unhappy and she conspired with other co-accused for his murder.

13. The role which has been assigned to the petitioner is that while they were scheming to murder Zakir Hussain by strangulation, but he arranged the pistol which he had handed over to the main accused Mohammad Sikander a few days prior to the actual commission of the offence.

14. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the night of incident i.e., 12.02.2020, Smt. Rahima Bibi, wife of the deceased-Zakir Hussain, the main accused-Mohammad Sikander co-accused-Mohd. Kalu and Amriul, all four strangulated Zakir Hussain. However, Zakir Hussain resisted the same, on which Mohammad Sikander took out the pistol and shot him dead. Thereafter, the petitioner Nadeem reached the house of Zakir Hussain and Digitally they all tried to dispose of the body of the deceased, but because he was heavy built, they dragged him and left him on the street. All the persons involved in the crime thereafter, planted some incriminating evidence near the house of Manju to indicate that she was the one who had committed the murder of the deceased.

15. As per the case of the prosecution itself, the petitioner had made available the weapon of offence a few days prior to the commission of the murder of the deceased, though as per the conspiracy hatched between all the accused persons, they all had decided to kill the deceased by strangulating him. There was no scheme of shooting the deceased dead.