Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
In The Matter Of: Irshad Ali – Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2354 of 2021
Decided on : 14-09-2021
Penal Code, 1860- Sections 186/353/332/323/147/148/149/336/427/302- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984- Sections ¾- Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 – Protest – Violence - Petitioner was identified in the CCTV footage – Rejection of Bail.
Finding of the Court:
At the behest of the organisers of the protest, a crowd carrying various weapons such as dandas, lathis, baseball bats, iron rods, and stones convened at the main Wazirabad Road, and refused to pay heed to the orders of the senior officers and police force - footage of the Petitioner at the Scene of Crime is quite egregious, and is therefore sufficient to keep the Petitioner in custody. This Court has perused the video in slow motion and is of the opinion that the Petitioner is visible and his presence at the Scene of Crime cannot be disputed. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not satisfy the ingredients to claim bail on ground of parity with the other co-accused- unlike the Petitioner herein, none of those co-accused who have been granted bail were caught in an overt act which indicated their active participation in perpetrating the offences mentioned in FIR.
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 the fourth supplementary chargesheet has been filed against the Petitioner on 30.12.2020 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. Chargesheet was filed on 08.6.2020, and supplementary chargesheets were filed on 30.06.2020, 20.08.2020, 17.11.2020 and 30.12.2020.
10. Mr. Salim Malik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Petitioner herein was arrested on 07.12.2020, almost 9 months after registration of the FIR, without sufficient cause and without any substantive or palpable evidence against the Petitioner that ties him to the offences stipulated in the FIR. He has submitted that the Petitioner is an innocent person who is not involved in any other case, and that he has been doing stitching work since 1980. Furthermore, it has been submitted that he has three mi
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.
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....
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....
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the court must balance personal liberty with the enforcement of criminal law.
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....
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 ....
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
