The court emphasized the need for a clear finding on the nature of unlawful common object and highlighted the importance of considering the length of incarceration and the unlikelihood of a timely trial as factors for granting bail.

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 GajrajSingh) received a PCR call vide DD No. 17A on 26.02.2020 that some rioters were pelting stones on Street No.1, near Kabir Builder, Bhagirathi Vihar. 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. Salim Malik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the investigation is tainted and the Petitioner is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the matter herein. He has submitted that DD No. 17A was not included anywhere in the chargesheet.

7. Mr. Malik has submitted that there is no clinching evidence against the Petitioner and that even the initial statement of the eyewitness Himanshu did not factor in the presence of the Petitioner herein. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that merely the statement of the eyewitness cannot be relied upon to prolong the incarceration of the Petitioner. He has further argued that the CDR which allegedly places the Petitioner in the vicinity of the SOC is not conclusive as the Petitioner stays in that locality and, therefore, it is inevitable that all the accused persons would be caught by the same mobile tower.

8. Mr. Malik has submitted the entire case of the prosecution is based on CCTV footage. He has stated that the CCTV footage allegedly places the Petitioner near the SOC around 4 PM, but the alleged incident occurred after 9 PM. He has, therefore, submitted that it cannot be ascertained if the Petitioner was at the SOC when the alleged incident had occurred. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also submitted that co-accused Rashid @Monu has been granted bail by this Court and, thus, the Petitioner also deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has concluded his submissions by stating that the Petitioner has already spent almost two years in jail and that this is a violation of his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of