Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Shadab Ahmad - Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Application No. 1882 of 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 discussed the applicability of Section 149 IPC, the nature of the offence, and the parameters for granting bail. The court found that the petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time and granted bail with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks bail in a case related to violence in Delhi in February 2020 during a protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The petitioner was arrested and charged under various sections of the IPC and PDPP Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time and granted bail with specific conditions.
Issues: The court considered the nature of the offence, the applicability of Section 149 IPC, and the parameters for granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the duty to ensure proper enforcement of criminal law with the duty to ensure that the law does not become a tool for targeted harassment. It also considered the parameters for granting or refusing the grant of bail.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions, noting that the observations made in the order are only for the purpose of grant of bail and cannot be taken into consideration during the trial.
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 186/353/332/323/147/148/149/336/427/302of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter, "PDPPAct").
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 CompLalnant, 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 CompLalnant 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 CompLalnant 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 CompLalnant receiving treatment at Panchsheel Hospital, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
8. The CompLalnant 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 formally 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 charge sheets have been filed on 30.06.2020, 20.08.2020, 17.11.2020 and 30.12.2020.
10. Ms. Rebecca John, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has informed the Court the Petitioner was arrested on 06.04.2020 in connection to the instant FIR No. 60/2020 at PS Dayalpur. After the Petitioner filed his first bail application in the case pertaining to FIR No. 60/2020, he was arrested on 20.05.2020 in the matter related to FIR No. 59/2020. Further, on 07.11.2020, the Petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 136/2020 wherein he was granted bail vide Order dated 21.12.2020.
11. Ms. John has submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
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....
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 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.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the court must balance personal liberty with the enforcement of criminal law.
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....
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....
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....
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....
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.
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
