Delhi HC: Accused denied of bail in Rahul Solanki’s case
Recently, the Karkardooma Court dismissed the bail application of a person named Sonu Saifi, an accused in the murder case of Rahul Solanki. Rahul had succumbed to bullet wounds during a riot in Northeast Delhi.
The Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav observed the fact that Rahul’s brother Rohit Solanki did not mention the bail applicant in his first statement is of no consequence as he “could be in mental shock, agony and pain due to his brother’s death”.
It is noted that the counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution witness and Rahul’s brother, Rohit was a “planted witness” as he did not mention anyone’s name in his statement to the police, but named Sonu Saifi in his successive statement to the police.
To this, the court replied,
“Certain amount of cool off period is necessary by any person in such situations to regain his composure and it is not expected from a person of common prudence to give a fine blow-by-blow account of the incident in such a situation”.
The matter before the court
An FIR was filed in this murder case with an alleged history of “gunshot wounds”, who was declared “brought dead” by the hospital.
READ ALSO: Punjab & Haryana HC: Unfortunate to see writ jurisdiction invoked at the drop of hat, as if HCs are Tehsil Courts
Taking into consideration, the sensitivity of this case, the probe was transferred to the Crime Branch.
Further, it was submitted b the state that this was a case of a brutal murder of a boy named “Rahul Solanki” by the “riotous mob”, on the account that he was from a different community.
It was argued that Rohit was not able to mention the applicant and other accused persons as he was under chock and was not in a good state of mind at that time due to his brother’s death.
It was also argued that after seeing the mourning period of 13 days, Rohit came out of grief and composed himself. Thereafter, he prepared himself to give a complete statement to the probe agency on 8 March 2020, whereby he not only identified the applicant but also told about his profession. The applicant was a welder by profession and a famous person in his area.
Order of the court
In its order, the court observed that the applicant was not seen in any of the available CCTV footage. However, the court noted that in Rahul’s statement he had not only identified his name but also stated his profession of being a welder and it couldn’t be thrown away on this sole account.
Considering the facts of the case in total, the court did not find it to be a fit case for the grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.