Top
News Updates

Delhi Riots- "Having Lost His Brother, Witness Was Still In Shock": Delhi Court Denies Bail To Accused in Rahul Solanki Murder Case

Sparsh Upadhyay
12 Dec 2020 10:51 AM GMT
Delhi Riots- Having Lost His Brother, Witness Was Still In Shock: Delhi Court Denies Bail To Accused in Rahul Solanki Murder Case
x

The Karkardooma Court (Delhi) recently dismissed the bail application of a man named Sonu Saifi, who is an accused in the Rahul Solanki Murder Case. Allegedly, Rahul Solanki had succumbed to bullet injuries during the Northeast Delhi riots. The Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav observed that the fact that the victim Rahul Solanki's brother Rohit Solanki did not name the bail...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Karkardooma Court (Delhi) recently dismissed the bail application of a man named Sonu Saifi, who is an accused in the Rahul Solanki Murder Case. Allegedly, Rahul Solanki had succumbed to bullet injuries during the Northeast Delhi riots.

The Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav observed that the fact that the victim Rahul Solanki's brother Rohit Solanki did not name the bail applicant in his initial statement is of no consequence as he "could be under tremendous mental shock, pain and agony on account of sudden death of his brother."

It may be noted that the Counsel for the Accused had argued that prosecution witness & Rahul Solanki's brother, Rohit Solanki was a "planted witness" as he did not name anyone in his statement to the police, but named Sonu Saifi in his subsequent statement to the police.

To this, the Court said,

"Certain amount of cool off period is usually required by any human being in such an extra-ordinary situation to regain his composure and it is not expected from a man of common prudence to give fine blow-by-blow account of the incident in such a situation."

The matter before the Court

An FIR in the Rahul Solanki Murder Case was registered with the alleged history of "gunshot injuries", who was declared "brought dead" by the Hospital.

Considering the sensitivity of the case, investigation thereof was transferred to Crime Branch.

It was submitted by the State that it was a case of brutal murder of a young, innocent boy named "Rahul Solanki" by the "riotous mob", merely on account of the fact that he belonged to a different community.

It was argued that Rohit Solanki (brother of deceased Rahul Solanki) could not name the applicant and other co-accused persons as he was under tremendous shock and not in a good state of mind at that time on account of the sudden and brutal death of his brother.

It was also argued that after observing the mourning period of 13 days (as per Hindu ritual), Rohit Solanki came out of the grief, composed himself and thereafter prepared himself to give his detailed statement to the investigating agency on 08.03.2020, whereby he not only categorically identified the applicant by name, but also told about his profession, i.e the applicant being a "welder" by profession and a famous character in the locality/area.

Court's Order

The Court, in its order, observed that applicant was not visible in any of the CCTV footage(s) made available on record, however, the Court noted that in his statement, Rahul Solanki had not only categorically identified the applicant by his name but had also stated about his profession of being a "welder" and the same couldn't "be thrown into dustbin on this sole account."

The Court also stated that it "cannot lose sight of an epochal development in the matter… recovery of one firearm (country-made pistol) along with four live cartridges at the instance of applicant, and as per the report of ballistic expert, said firearm has been found to be in working condition"

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, the Court did not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application was accordingly dismissed.

Read Order
Next Story
Share it