Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
In the matter of : Mohd. Ibrahim - Petitioner
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. No. 2704 of 2021
Decided On : 27-09-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 186/353/332/323/147/148/149/336/427/302 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Sections 3/4 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 144 - Protest - Rioting, armed with dangerous weapons - Charged - Bail Application - Protestors had mobilized near area and 25 Road, and were moving towards Main Road - 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, it is stated that protestors were carrying sticks, baseball sticks, iron rods and stones - Complainant received an injury on his right elbow and right hand due to a huge stone - It is further stated that crowd even snatched tear gas balls and lathis from police, and started beating them with it - Beaten with sticks and stones, and as a result, they fell down and suffered grievous head injuries - Whether a case for criminal conspiracy for an allegation of murder, is made out against Petitioner.
Finding of the Court: Court has previously opined on the importance of personal liberty in a democratic polity, but it is to be categorically noted that individual liberty cannot be misused in a manner that threatens the very fabric of civilised society by attempting to destabilise it and cause hurt to other persons - In light of this, footage of Petitioner with sword is quite egregious and is therefore sufficient to keep Petitioner in custody - Without commenting on merits of matter, this Court is of opinion that Petitioner is not to be granted bail.
Result: Bail application is, therefore, dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points relevant to the issue of bail are as follows:
The court emphasizes that personal liberty is fundamental in a democratic society, but it cannot be misused to threaten societal stability or public order (!) (!) . The liberty of an individual must be balanced against the need to maintain law and order, especially in cases involving violence or conspiracy to commit serious offenses (!) (!) .
The grant of bail involves a careful consideration of various factors, including the nature and gravity of the offense, the evidence against the accused, the character and behavior of the accused, and circumstances peculiar to the individual (!) (!) (!) . The court must ensure that the liberty of the accused is not unduly restricted unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty or that their release would jeopardize the investigation or public order (!) (!) (!) .
In cases involving serious offenses punishable with death or life imprisonment, there is a presumption against bail; however, the court retains discretion to grant bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty or that exceptional circumstances exist (!) (!) .
The circumstances peculiar to the accused, such as their involvement, location, and conduct, are significant considerations. Evidence indicating the accused's active participation, such as being seen on CCTV with a dangerous weapon or in close proximity to the scene of the crime, weighs heavily against granting bail (!) (!) .
The presence of incriminating evidence, such as CCTV footage, cell phone location data, and confessional statements, can establish the accused's involvement in the conspiracy or commission of the offense, justifying continued detention (!) (!) .
The court considers whether the accused has attempted to destroy evidence or obstruct justice, for example, by burning clothes or disclosing false statements, which adversely affects the likelihood of bail being granted (!) (!) .
The fact that the accused was involved in a premeditated and organized conspiracy, with evidence of meetings, communication, and planning, supports the denial of bail, as it indicates a serious threat to public order and safety (!) (!) .
The court also assesses whether the accused has been identified through reliable means such as CCTV footage and whether their actions, including carrying weapons and inciting violence, are consistent with their guilt (!) (!) .
In summary, the court's decision to deny bail in this case is based on the gravity of the offenses, the strength of the evidence linking the accused to the conspiracy and violence, the risk of tampering with evidence, and the need to maintain public order.
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 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/188/333/336/427/307/308/302/201/120-B/34 of the IPC, read with 3/4 of the PDPP Act. Thereafter, supplementary chargesheets were filed on 30.06.2020, 20.08.2020, 17.11.2020 and 30.12.2020.
10. Mr. Shahid Ali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Petitioner herein was arrested on 30.03.2020,and he has been falsely and illegally implicated in FIR No. 60/2020. He has stated that this is the first bail application which has been preferred before this Hon’ble Court.
11. Mr. Ali has argued that as per the Injury Report, which is a part and parcel of the chargesheet, the death of the deceased was due to a gunshot injury and the same was possibly fired by the gun of a police official. He has stated that the death has not been caused by the sword which was carried
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
