IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Mohd Saleem Khan - Petitioner
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2349 of 2021
Decided On : 27-09-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 186/353/332/323/147/148/149/336/427/302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 - Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Sections ¾ - Criminal conspiracy – Unlawful Assembly – Rioting, armed with dangerous weapons - Chargesheet - Bail Application - Complainant, i.e. Constable was on duty with deceased, and others as well as DCP District and his staff - Protestors had mobilized near area and were moving towards Main Road - 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 - Pelting stones at police officials, and beat them as well as other passersby with aforementioned weapons - Whether a case for criminal conspiracy for an allegation of murder, is made out against Petitioner.
Finding of the Court : without commenting on the merits of matter, this Court is of the opinion that Petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time, and that veracity of allegations levelled against him can be tested during trial - Court is inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner - It is made clear that observations made in this Order are only for purpose of grant of bail and cannot be taken into consideration during trial.
Result : Bail application disposed of
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/188/333/336/427/307/308/302/201/120-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. Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Petitioner herein was arrested on 11.03.2020, and has falsely been implicated in FIR No. 60/2020 and that there is nothing on record which shows that the Petitioner was a part of a mob or present at the Scene of Crime. It has been submitted to the Court that the co-accused of the Petitioner, Mohd. Mansoor, has been granted bail vide Order dated 24.05.2021 by this Hon’ble Court. It has been submitted that Mansoor had allegedly been identified at the Scene of Crime, pelting stones at the police of
Masalti and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee
Point of Law : Grant of Bail - Petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time, and that veracity of allegations levelled against him can be tested during trial.
Grant of Bail - circumstances which are peculiar to the accused should also be a factor that must be taken into consideration while granting or refusing bail.
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 Courts must exercise their jurisdiction to uphold the tenets of personal liberty, subject to rightful regulation of the same by validly enacted legisla....
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 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.
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 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.
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....
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the court must balance personal liberty with the enforcement of criminal law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.