The Gujarat High Court quashed a 2019 criminal case, including attempt to murder charges, against Surat advocate Mohammed Bilal Kagazi after CCTV footage proved his absence from the alleged crime spot. The Court held that surveillance evidence weakened the prosecution’s allegations significantly.
The Gujarat High Court has set aside a 2019 criminal case, including serious charges such as attempt to murder, against a Surat-based advocate after CCTV footage established that he was not present at the location where the alleged offence took place.
Justice P M Raval passed the order on June 19 while allowing a petition filed by advocate Mohammed Bilal Kagazi. The Court found that surveillance footage from the Surat District Court premises clearly contradicted the allegations made against Kagazi and showed that he was not present at the place of the alleged incident.
The High Court held that the CCTV evidence substantially weakened the prosecution’s case, as the footage verified that Kagazi was absent from the court corridor and nearby areas during the relevant time period.
Background of the Criminal Case
The dispute originated from an FIR registered in 2019 at Rander Police Station in Surat. The complaint accused Kagazi and several other individuals of offences including criminal conspiracy, attempt to murder, rioting, unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation and voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons.
The complainant, Asaraf Shaikh, alleged that the incident occurred on December 10, 2019, at the Surat District Court complex.
According to Shaikh’s complaint, he and his friends were waiting on the third-floor corridor of the Sessions Court around 10:00 a.m. to meet someone known to them. At that time, Kagazi allegedly approached them and demanded that they withdraw an earlier criminal case. The complaint claimed that an altercation followed, leading to allegations of threats and assault.
Arguments of Parties
Lawyer Claims False Implication: After learning about the allegations, advocate Kagazi approached senior police authorities, including the Surat Police Commissioner and the investigating officer, asserting that he had not been present at the court premises when the alleged incident occurred.
He claimed that he had been falsely implicated and requested verification of CCTV footage from the court complex to establish his location.
Following directions from the High Court, the investigating authorities collected surveillance footage from the relevant area.
The footage reportedly showed that Kagazi was not present in the third-floor passage or balcony of the court building during the time mentioned in the complaint.
Prosecution Opposes Quashing Plea: During the hearing, Kagazi’s lawyer, Kashyap Joshi, argued that the allegations were fabricated and that the complaint was filed with an ulterior motive.
The defence submitted that Kagazi had been targeted because he was representing other accused persons in related proceedings. It was argued that the CCTV evidence completely disproved the complainant’s version of events.
However, the prosecution opposed the petition and argued that the allegations, particularly those relating to criminal conspiracy, required examination during a full-fledged trial.
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation had collected certain materials showing communication between Kagazi and other accused persons before the alleged incident.
According to the prosecution, these circumstances required further judicial examination rather than termination of proceedings at the preliminary stage.
Observations of the High Court
The High Court, however, rejected the objections raised by the prosecution.
Justice Raval observed that while courts generally avoid examining the credibility of evidence in detail while deciding petitions for quashing criminal proceedings, the present case was different because the accused’s absence from the scene was supported by verified electronic evidence.
The Court noted that the CCTV footage provided strong material showing that Kagazi was not at the location of the alleged offence.
The Bench observed that continuing criminal proceedings against a person when objective evidence indicates that he was not present at the scene would result in an unjust prosecution.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Sajal Bose versus State of West Bengal, which deals with situations where continuation of criminal proceedings becomes unjustified due to material contradictions.
The High Court concluded that the verified alibi substantially affected the foundation of the FIR and justified intervention under its inherent powers.
After considering the CCTV evidence and surrounding circumstances, the Gujarat High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against advocate Mohammed Bilal Kagazi.
The Court held that the continuation of the case would serve no purpose when the available evidence contradicted the allegations against him.
The complainant, despite being formally served notice, did not appear before the Court during the proceedings.
The decision highlights the importance of electronic evidence, particularly CCTV footage, in criminal investigations and demonstrates the judiciary’s role in preventing misuse of criminal proceedings when objective material shows that an accused person was not involved in the alleged incident.