The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of evidence, pending charges, and the expected trial duration in the decision to grant bail.

JUDGMENT :

The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

1. The above-captioned petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No.84/2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/153-A/302/395/397/452/454/505/506/120-B IPC, registered at PS Dayal Pur, North East District, Delhi.

2. The above-captioned petitions have been filed of the same incident and FIR and the evidence on record are the same against all the accused/petitioners, therefore, these petitions being decided by this common order. However, since facts are also same of all the petitioners, therefore, facts narrated in Bail Appln.3163/2020 filed by accused Junaid are being discussed while passing order in these petitions.

3. Case of the prosecution is that in the North East area of Delhi at different places, incidents of stone pelting and rioting were reported. On 24.02.2020, at around 3:00 PM, Hindu mob which was pro CAA also entered the arena and they too started pelting stones etc. at the Muslim community, forcing them to retreat. Muslim rioters were concentrated towards the Muslim dominated Chandbagh area, while the Hindu rioters were towards the Yamuna Vihar area. Some of the rioters on both the sides also went to the roof tops of the buildings of their area over looking Mohan Nursing Home and adjoining buildings, while Muslim mob took position at the roof top of buildings like Saptarishi, Ispat and Alloy Private Limited etc. From the roof top of the building, there were firing and stone pelting towards each other, from both sides of the road. In short time, it became a full-fledged Hindu-Muslim riot. In the process, one Shahid received a gunshot injury which led to his unfortunate death.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence against the petitioner, as per the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. are that in their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., eye-witnesses Mukesh Kr. (Labour) who were present on the date and time of the incident as well as Ct. Amit and Ct. Azad who were present on duty near SOC deposed that petitioner herein was part of the unlawful mob which not only entered forcefully inside the Saptarishi building after breaking the iron gate but also illegally overtook the Saptarishi building after getting it evacuated forcefully from the actual inhabitants i.e, the labourers and their family members. He was actively pelting stones/bottles on the police party and other community persons. The owner of the building vide his statement deposed that the protestors looted the cash from the cash counter and broke the CCTV camera/DVR. The petitioner was using one mobile number and the CAF and CDR of the same were obtained from the concerned service provider. On scrutiny, it was revealed that said number was obtained by the petitioner on his name. On scrutiny of the CDR, it was also revealed that on the date and time of incident, mobile phone of petitioner was active at the scene of crime. Accordingly, he was arrested in the present case after having sufficient evidence on file dated 01.04.2020. Copy of FIR alongwith its English translation is annexed as Annexure-A.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence whatsoever against petitioner. He was called on 01.04.2020 through notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. that he was required for some normal inquiry and would be sent back after taking the statement. He was not arrested from his house and was taken to police station as cleared by police in charge-sheet. The notice of Section 160 Cr.P.C. is also provided in charge-sheet which shows the authenticity of the above submissions. After putting petitioner into custody an afterthought story was made by police to falsely implicate him in this case. There is no relevant statement provided from owner of building against petitioner. No call at 100 number was made by the owner ev