Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Two Alleged IB Informers In 2006 Arms And Explosives Case; Dismisses State Appeal

The Court found that the prosecution had failed to cross the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the CBI Closure Report which concluded that the recovery was false and fabricated and that both accused had been kept in illegal detention since December 2005.

The Court held that defective investigation acquires decisive weight when the gaps are of a nature the prosecution itself could have filled but chose not to, including CDR analysis to rebut the CBI's findings, fingerprint lifting from seized weapons, and examination of independent witnesses present at the scene. The double presumption of innocence accruing in favour of an accused after acquittal, the Court reaffirmed, can only be disturbed by thorough scrutiny on accepted legal parameters and not merely because another view is possible.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain observed, “...the case of the prosecution lacks credibility. The Closure Report of the CBI, especially analysis of the CDR details of the Respondents would show that there is independent evidence showing location of the Respondents and how their mobile phones got switched off on 13 th December, 2005 and 22nd December, 2005 respectively. If there was any evidence to the contrary, the Special Cell of the Delhi Police ought to have produced the same on record to show usage of the mobile phones by the Respondents post the said date…the obvious steps that ought to have been taken to establish the credibility of the seizure from the accused persons, were not been taken. In the absence of any unimpeachable evidence, this Court is of the view that impugned judgement does not warrant any interference.”.

Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Additional Public Prosecutor appeared for the appellant and Advocate M. Sufian Siddiqui appeared for the respondent.

For the facts, the two respondents, Muraif Qamar and Irshad Ali @ Deepak, claimed to be informers for the Intelligence Bureau and Special Cell of Delhi Police since the year 2000.

On February 9, 2006, a team of Special Cell officials intercepted a JKSRTC bus at Mukarba Chowk near G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi, and allegedly recovered from the respondents a cache of arms including two loaded pistols, non-electronic detonators, ABCD timers, and approximately two kilograms of oil-based explosive.

The respondents were charged under Sections 121, 121A, 122 and 123 read with Section 120B IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The respondents maintained throughout that they had been falsely implicated after refusing to go undercover into a terrorist camp in Jammu.

Following a writ petition by a relative of the respondents, the Delhi High Court directed the CBI in May 2006 to conduct a preliminary enquiry. The CBI's preliminary report found that the arrest did not inspire confidence, leading the High Court in July 2007 to direct an in-depth investigation.

The CBI's Closure Report dated November 11, 2008 concluded that both respondents had been picked up and kept in illegal detention from December 2005 and that the recovery of contraband on February 9, 2006 was false and fabricated. The Trial Court acquitted both respondents vide judgment dated December 22, 2016. Thereafter, the State appealed before the Delhi High Court.

The Court, after analysing the evidence of all eleven prosecution witnesses, predominantly police officials, found multiple cumulatively fatal infirmities in the prosecution case. Private vehicles were used in the raid without any logbook entry or registration numbers being recorded. No independent witnesses were associated with the recovery despite an IGL gas station, a DTC depot, and a police booth being in immediate proximity of Mukarba Chowk.

“…An IGL gas station and a police booth being in close vicinity, there is no reason as to why the police officials could not have asked for some officials from these places to join the raiding team and be present at the time when the raid was conducted also when the arrest was affected.”, the Bench said.

The driver and conductor of the JKSRTC bus, whose evidence would have been direct corroboration, were neither examined nor were the bus tickets verified. Fingerprints were not lifted from the weapons recovered. The site plan was sketchy and failed to reflect the positions of police officials or vehicles.

“In the opinion of this Court, one of the best pieces of evidence in this case to challenge the Closure Report of the CBI and to dispute the same would have been the CDR of the Respondents. However, no evidence was led in respect of the CDR of the Respondent’s mobile phone by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police, which is discussed in so much detail in the Closure Report of the CBI. Even the nature of the material recovered would show that there is a lot of similarity. Moreover, finger prints were not taken from the weapons recovered from the Respondents, which would have been impeachable proof of the Respondents carrying the said weapons. The findings of the Trial Court clearly point towards the fact that the guilt of the Respondents has not been established.”, the Bench observed.

“In fact, if there existed an apprehension that the Respondents were terrorists, it remains inexplicable as to why the entire police raiding team was not wearing bullet-proof jackets, particularly when enormous contradictions emerge from the testimonies of the various witnesses.”, the Bench noted.

Cause Title: State of NCT of Delhi v. Muraif Qamar and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4847-DB)

Appearances:

Appellant: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Additional Public Prosecutor, Lalit Luthra. Divya Yadav, Advocates.

Respondent: M. Sufian Siddiqui, Rakesh Bhugra, Md. Niyazuddin and Mohammad Mazhar Ahmed, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment