Forensic report did not support prosecution case: Delhi High Court grants bail to Delhi riots accused

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a Delhi riots accused while observing that FSL report did not support the prosecution case and that the presence of the accused on the crime spot was not established. (Yogesh vs State).The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kait. .The bail applicant, Yogesh was asserted in a riots FIR for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/302/153- A/436/505/34/120B IPC..The Prosecution opposed the grant of bail on the ground that a dead body was recovered from a drain in a highly decomposed state and the post mortem revealed two bullet injuries and 17 lacerated wounds which were inflicted on February 25. .It was also said that when bail applicant was arrested in another riots FIR, he himself had disclosed his involvement in the present case..The Prosection also said that two witnesses clearly identified the bail applicant, as well as other persons, as leading a mob and shouting anti-Muslim slogans. .Prosecutors Association moves Delhi High Court against appointment of SPPs for Delhi riots cases.The Court noted that the earlier bail application was rejected on account of recovery of a katta from him and that he played an active role in the commission of the offence. .However, pursuant to the FSL report and recovery of video footage, the Court observed that the Prosecution case was not supported. ."Pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, the results of FSL and DVRs are on record. As per the result of FSL report, three recovered bullets from the dead body of the deceased were not fired from country made pistols..".It added, ."..data available on DVR no.3 .. could not be retrieved. Data available on DVR no. 3 was crucial evidence of this case as camera of CCTV was installed just near the place of incident of this case.. It was observed that angle of such camera of Ch. no.1 was changed to the wrong side at about 08.54.51hrs and camera of Ch. no. 2 was changed to wrong side at about 08.54.12 hrs to avoid capture in the CCTV Footage. DVR no.2 covering mostly the area of counter and nearby portion.".In view of the above, the Court opined, .Keeping in view the result of FSL report which does not support the prosecution case and the result of DVRs, it is not established that petitioner was present on the spot at the time when the incident took place in the present case. In view of above, without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves bail..As per the order, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 and a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.."The Trial Court shall not get influenced by the observation made by this Court while passing the order.", the Court has clarified. .Advocate Gaurav Verma appeared for the bail applicant. .APP Manoj Chaudhary appeared for the State. .Read the Order: