Anup Jairam Bhambhani,J. - (1.)The applicant, who was taken into custody on 03.04.2020 in case FIR No. 105/2020 registered on 04.03.2020 under sections 147/148/149/427/436 IPC at PS : Dayalpur, seeks regular bail inter-alia on the grounds that he has neither been named in the FIR nor is there any allegation in the FIR nor any other material collected during investigation, that would identify the appli-cant as one of the perpetrators of the offences alleged.
(2.)Pursuant to order dated 26.05.2020 made in this matter, along with its additional status report dated 27.05.2020, the State has placed on record supplementary statement dated 10.04.2020 of complainant/ Mohd. Shanawaj/Shanawaz recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.', for short). The first statement of the complainant, on the basis of which the FIR was registered has not been filed on record. Ld. APP states however that the com-plainant's first statement is extracted in-extenso in the FIR itself.
(3.)Ms. Rebecca M. John, learned senior counsel appearing for the appli-cant states that firstly, the complainant Mohd. Shanawaz's supplemen-tary statement, upon which the State seeks to rely, does not in any manner identify or connect the applicant to the offences alleged. Sec-ondly, senior counsel contends that no test identification parade was conducted of the applicant to get the complainant to identify him, which ought to have been done in a case such as this, alleging arson by an unlawful assembly. Thirdly, Ms. John contends, that the appli-cant is a resident of Old Mustafabad which is nearly a 15-minute walk from Mahalaxmi Enclave, where the complainant is said to have run his confectionary shop; and therefore the applicant's presence in the vicinity of the shop cannot be assumed, unless there is evidence to that effect, which there isn't. She also contends that there is nothing on record to show that Ct. Vikas, who is alleged to have seen the ap-plicant committing the offences, was posted and present at the place of the incident. It is further pointed-out that the complainant's shop, where the applicant is alleged to have been spotted and Rajdhani Pub-lic School, the CCTV footage whereof is stated to have captured the applicant's presence, are not in the vicinity of each other.