The court emphasized the need for a clear finding regarding the nature of unlawful common object and highlighted the principles of personal liberty in granting bail based on the length of incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The Petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.39/2020 dated 28.02.2020 registered at P.S. Gokul Puri for offences under Sections 147/148/149/302/436/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {hereinafter, "IPC").

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, and in relation to this, the Complainant (ASI Gajraj Singh) received a PCR call vide DD No. 17A on 26.02.2020 that some rioters were pelting stones on Street No.l, near Kabir Builder, BhagirathiVihar. As per the FIR, the Complainant rushed to Bhagirathi Vihar where he was informed by a Beat Constable who in turn was informed by some people that the house of owner of Anil Sweets, which was located in Chaman Park, Main Brijpuri Road, had been set ablaze by rioters.

4. The FIR states that when the Complainant and the Beat Constable reached the said house, they found the door to be broken and house to be completely burnt. On inspecting the second floor, the Complainant noticed a semi-burnt body lying in the corner. The FIR further states that the deceased seemed to be about 20 years old, and that both the arms and legs of the body were chopped off. It is stated that the chopped limbs could not be found, and that on inquiry, it was found that the burnt body belonged to a person named Dilbar who was a waiter at the sweet house. The body was then sent to GTB Hospital and then to the GTB Hospital mortuary. The FIR states that it appears that unknown persons belonging to one of the parties opposing and supporting the CAA killed the deceased with a deadly weapon and then set the house ablaze with the intent to destroy the evidence of the crime.

5. It is stated that investigation is now complete and chargesheet has been filed against the Petitioner on 04.06.2020 wherein the Petitioner has been added. The chargesheet states that there is sufficient material to proceed against the Petitioner herein under Sections 144/147/148/149/188/153A/302/201/427/436/120-B/34 of the IPC. A supplementary chargesheet has also been filed on 07.07.2020.

6. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He has argued that there are 22 FIRs against the Petitioner and he is out on bail in 12 cases out of the 22, which indicates that the police have no clinching evidence against the Petitioner to connect him with the cases. He has further submitted that the Petitioner has neither been named in the FIR nor has any specific role been assigned to him.

7. Mr. Kumar has emphasized that the Petitioner has not been seen in any video footage, unlike the other co-accused in the matter. He has submitted that co-accused Rashid @ Monu has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Order dated 22.02.2021 on the same ground that there was no electronic evidence against the Petitioner therein and, therefore, the Petitioner herein deserves to be granted bail on the ground of parity.

8. It has been submitted by Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the incarceration of the Petitioner cannot be prolonged solely on the ground that the CDR places the Petitioner within the vicinity of the SOC. He has stated that the reliance cannot be placed on the CDR as the Petitioner is a resident of the area and it is but natural that he would be shown at that location. Mr. Kumar has further argued that statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Ankit Pal, Amit Pal, Anil Pal and Chhidda Lal Tomar dated 16.03.2020, 01.04.2020, 05.03.2020 and 06.03.2020, respectively, cannot form the basis to keep the Petitioner in custody as the veracity of the same must be tested during the course of trial. Further, Mr. Kumar has informed this Court that the statements were recorded at a belated stage of the i