[Delhi Riots] "Flight risk:" Delhi Court refuses bail to man who surrendered

A person accused in a rioting and murder case connected to the Delhi riots of February 2020, who had surrendered, was denied bail by a sessions court last week on the ground that he was a “flight risk” [State v. Mohd Imran]..Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat observed that the accused had previously been declared a proclaimed offender, leaving him no choice but to surrender.Therefore, he cannot simply say that he surrendered before the Court to show his good conduct."His anticipatory bail application was dismissed which perhaps led him no choice but to surrender. The said conduct of the accused clearly shows that he is a flight risk,” the judge held..The accused’s bail application was filed in a case stemming from the alleged murder of a man, with a sharp-edged weapon, during the riots that rocked north-east Delhi.The lawyer for the accused argued that though the police had alleged that he was a member of an unlawful assembly that participated in rioting, he was not present at the place of incident. It was pointed out that the local police had been coming to his house and summoning him to the police station without giving anything in writing..The counsel also submitted that a police report filed on November 21, 2020, before the Karkardooma District and Sessions Judge in response to an accused's plea, showed no case against him at the police station concerned.It was only later when a Magistrate Court issued a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the accused came to know that the police was looking for him..His anticipatory bail plea was rejected by a court on July 22, 2021, following which he filed a plea for surrender, which he did on September 14, 2021.The bail plea before Judge Rawat was also sought parity with two other accused who were granted bail earlier..The prosecution, on the contrary, claimed that the accused had suffered a bullet injury in the violence, thus, indicating that he was present at the scene of crime. He was also willingly refraining from participating in the investigation that resulted in a non-bailable warrant against him and later a proclamation, the prosecution contended. .The Court said that the contention of the accused’s counsel of his client’s name not being mentioned in the FIR was not relevant, as it was only a preliminary report leading to an investigation that brings out the role of accused persons..Besides, a “crucial” difference between the co-accused who were granted bail was stated to be the fact that the present accused was declared a proclaimed offender. “I do not see any reason to enlarge the applicant/accused Mohd. Imran on bail,” the Court held..Advocate Nasir Ali represented the accused while Special Public Prosecutor Anuj Handa argued on behalf of the State..[Read Order]