Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Furkan - Petitioner
Versus
The State, (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2411 of 2021
Decided On : 03-09-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 144 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Sections ¾ - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 186/353/332/323/147/148/149/336/427/302 - Damaged public and private property - Injuries - Electronic evidence - Sticks, baseball sticks, iron rods and stones - Protestors had mobilized - When they assembled near Main Road, it is stated that Complainant and other police officers present attempted to convince protestors to not move towards Main Road, however, it is stated that protestors were carrying sticks, baseball sticks, iron rods and stones - Whether when an offence of murder is committed by an unlawful assembly, then should each person in unlawful assembly be denied benefit of bail, regardless of their role in unlawful assembly or object of unlawful assembly.
Finding of the court : Petitioner herein has been in custody for 16 months and was formally added by way of chargesheet. A perusal of the material on record has revealed to Court that there is no electronic evidence which places Petitioner at the Scene of Crime, and the CDR in the instant case of Petitioner is inconclusive as Petitioner is a resident of local area - Court has noted that arrest of Petitioner has taken place on account of disclosure statements of other co-accused and at this juncture, this cannot form basis of continued arrest of the Petitioner - Petitioner has roots in society, and, therefore, there is no danger of him absconding and fleeing - This Court is of opinion that Petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time, and that the veracity of the allegations levelled against him can be tested during trial - Additionally, no incriminating material was recovered from Petitioner.
Result : Bail application is disposed
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The Petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.60/2020 dated 25.02.2020 registered at PS Dayalpur for offences under Sections 186/353/332/323/147/148/149/336/427/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter, “PDPP Act”).
2. The FIR relates to the violence that took place in the National Capital Territory of Delhi in the month of February 2020.
3. The brief facts leading to the instant Bail Application are that a protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter, “CAA”) had been taking place for 1.5 months prior to the incident at Khajuri Square to Loni Circle at Wazirabad Road, Chand Bagh near 25 Futa Service Road by the Muslim community.
4. It is stated in the instant FIR that the Complainant, i.e. Constable Sunil Kumar, was on duty with the deceased, HC Ratan Lal, and others, namely Giri Chand, Ct. Mahavir, Ct. Jitender, HC Narender, HC Brijesh, W/HC Savitri, as well as DCP Shahdara District Amit Kumar and his staff.
5. It is stated that on 24.02.2020, at about 01:00 PM, the protestors had mobilized near the Chand Bagh area and 25 Futa Road, and were moving towards the Main Wazirabad Road. When they assembled near Main Wazirabad Road, it is stated that the Complainant and other police officers present attempted to convince the protestors to not move towards the Main Wazirabad Road, however, it is stated that the protestors were carrying sticks, baseball sticks, iron rods and stones. It is stated that ACP Gokalpuri and DCP Shahdara warned the protestors via loudspeaker of a government vehicle that lack of adherence to legal warnings would necessitate strict action against the crowd. It is stated that some people amongst the crowd started pelting stones at the police officials, and beat them as well as other passersby with aforementioned weapons that had been hidden.
6. It is stated that the Complainant herein received an injury on his right elbow and right hand due to a huge stone. It is further stated that the crowd even snatched tear gas balls and lathis from the police, and started beating them with it. It is stated that ACP Gokalpuri, HC Ratan Lal and DCP Shahdara Amit Kumar were also beaten with sticks and stones, and as a result, they fell down and suffered grievous head injuries.
7. The FIR states that post the incident, the protestors fled away and the injured were sent to a hospital, with the Complainant receiving treatment at Panchsheel Hospital, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
8. The Complainant then states that he was informed that HC Ratan Lal had succumbed to a bullet injury, and some other police officers as well as public persons had also suffered injuries. It is stated that the protestors had also set fire to the vehicle of DCP Shahdara and private vehicles of police officers, and also damaged public and private property.
9. It is stated that investigation is now completed and chargesheet has been filed against the Petitioner on 08.06.2020 wherein the Petitioner has been added. The chargesheet states that there is sufficient material to proceed against the Petitioner herein under Sections 186/353/332/323/109/144/147/148/149/153A/188/333/336/427/307/308/397/412/302/201/120-B/34 of the IPC, read with 3/4 of the PDPP Act. Thereafter, supplementary chargesheets have been filed on 30.06.2020, 20.08.2020, 17.11.2020 and 30.12.2020.
10. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Petitioner herein has been falsely implicated in the instant FIR, and that there exists no evidence which can prove the connection of the Petitioner to the incident beyond reasonable doubt. It is also submitted that the evidence is fabricated, cannot be admissible and therefore the Petitioner cannot be convicted on the basis of the available material.
11. It has further been submitted to the Court by Mr. Tiwari that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01.04.2020
Point of Law : Unlawful assembly - Bail granted - When there is a general allegation against a large number of persons Court naturally hesitates to convict all of them on such vague evidence. Therefo....
The court emphasized the need to balance personal liberty with the enforcement of criminal law and the duty to ensure that the law does not become a tool for targeted harassment.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and Courts must exercise their jurisdiction to uphold the tenets of personal liberty, subject to rightful regulation of the same by validly enacted legisla....
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the court must balance personal liberty with the enforcement of criminal law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and Courts must exercise their jurisdiction to uphold the tenets of personal liberty, subject to r....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance personal liberty with the enforcement of criminal law, considering factors such as lack of evidence, the accused's age, and the....
Point of Law : Citizenship – Protest – Rejection of bail - none of those co-accused who have been granted bail were caught in an overt act which indicated their active participation in perpetrating t....
The mere presence in an unlawful assembly implicates accused members under Section 149 IPC, regardless of individual intent, if actions align with the assembly's common purpose.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the alleged incident and the prolonged ....
The judgment emphasized the importance of balancing personal liberty and public security, considering the nature of the unlawful assembly, and the gravity of the accusations in deciding on bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
