They had seemingly thought of everything. Helmets to hide their faces. Raincoats to make identification harder. A motorcycle for a quick getaway. Even an attempt to change clothes after the shooting.
But in a case where the alleged shooters went to considerable lengths to conceal their identities, it was the details they could not hide that helped investigators piece together the trail.
The case concerns the broad-daylight shooting of Rajesh alias Bunty in Khanpur on March 18. According to the prosecution, Rajesh was riding his scooty when two men on a Splendor motorcycle tracked him and opened fire. He suffered multiple gunshot injuries to his right arm and chest.
The two men had covered themselves with helmets and raincoats. The plan, the prosecution alleged, was to make sure their faces remained out of sight. CCTV footage, however, followed their movements before and after the attack.
And that is where the disguise began to unravel.
The court noted that shooter Praveen was captured on CCTV earlier that morning in a yellow T-shirt, grey trousers and white shoes. During the attack, he was wearing a black raincoat and helmet. Shortly afterwards, cameras near Pul Prahladpur captured him removing the raincoat and helmet. Underneath were the same clothes and the same white shoes.
For the court, that continuity mattered.
The same footage showed Neeraj alias Bharat, who the prosecution alleged was riding the getaway motorcycle, fleeing after the attack. He was wearing a black T-shirt bearing the number 66 and grey/black shorts. More importantly, the court noted the matching use of slippers, or chappals, in his movements before and after the incident.
The judge described these connections as giveaway facts and said the physical and electronic evidence revealed certain undeniable, objective factual links that, at the prima facie stage, undermined the applicant’s plea of innocence and false implication.
The evidence did not stop at clothing and footwear. CCTV footage allegedly showed the motorcycle being parked near a wall after the shooting, with the two men removing their helmets, raincoats and shorts. The discarded raincoats and helmets were later recovered, while the getaway motorcycle was found abandoned near Pul Prahladpur.
The prosecution’s case was that Neeraj had played a more active role than simply being present. It alleged that he arranged the motorcycle, helmets and raincoats, drove the getaway bike and later fled to Goa. The court also took note of the prosecution’s apprehension that releasing him could expose witnesses to intimidation, particularly since he lived in the same locality as the complainant.
Neeraj’s lawyer, however, argued that there was no direct identification of his face in the CCTV footage and that no weapon or other incriminating article had been recovered from him personally. The defence also sought parity with another accused who had been granted bail.
The court was not persuaded.
Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi observed that bail proceedings are not meant to become a mini-trial, but said the material placed before him was sufficient to establish a prima facie link.
In the end, the elaborate effort to stay anonymous did not translate into bail. On September 7, the Saket court dismissed Neeraj’s bail application.
