Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Mohd Arif - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln.774/2021 & Crl.M.A.9357/2021
Decided On : 03-09-2021
BAIL - Offences under IPC and PDPP Act - 186/353/332/323/147/148/149/336/427/302 - The court granted bail to the Petitioner 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 IPC, read with 3/4 of the PDPP Act.
Fact of the Case:
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 (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act). The FIR relates to the violence that took place in the National Capital Territory of Delhi in the month of February 2020. The Petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2020 and has been in custody since then. The chargesheet states that there is sufficient material to proceed against the Petitioner under various sections of the IPC and PDPP Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the video footage placing the Petitioner at the Scene of Crime cannot be relied upon at this stage as the Petitioner is not explicitly visible in the same and the clothes similar to that of the Petitioner have been adorned by multiple others as well. The Court also noted that the authenticity of the video analysis conducted which identifies the Petitioner in multiple videos is a matter of trial. The Court further observed that the presence of the Petitioner in the video footage wherein he is hiding a danda also does not justify the continued incarceration of the Petitioner, and the authenticity of the same is not to be delved into at this point and is a matter of trial. The Court, therefore, granted bail to the Petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioner should be granted bail in the case involving serious offences under the IPC and PDPP Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered various factors including the nature and gravity of the accusations, the likelihood of the offence being repeated, the danger of the accused absconding, and the character and standing of the accused. The Court also emphasized the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that Courts must exercise their jurisdiction to uphold the tenets of personal liberty, subject to rightful regulation of the same by validly enacted legislation.
Final Decision: The Court granted bail to the Petitioner 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 IPC, read with 3/4 of the PDPP Act.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - 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/188/333/336/427/307/308/397/412/302/201/120-B/34 of the IPC, read with 3/4 of the PDPP Act. Thereafter, supplementary chargesheets have been filed on 30.06.2020, 20.08.2020, 17.11.2020 and 30.12.2020.
10. Mr. Tanveer Ahmad Mir, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Petitioner herein has been falsely and maliciously implicated in the instant FIR. He has stated that the petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2020 and has been languishing behind bars since then.
11. Mr. Mir further submits that regular bail applications of the petitioner were dismissed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North-East Delhi vide order dated 14.05.2020, and by the learned Additional Session Judge-03, North-East Delhi District vide order dated 30.09.2020. Thereafter, an
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 Courts must exercise their jurisdiction to uphold the tenets of personal liberty, subject to rightful regulation of the same by validly enacted legisla....
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.
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 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.
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....
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 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.
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.
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
