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 incarceration without trial warrant the grant of bail.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The Petitioner herein has approached this Court for grant of regular 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. The Petitioner herein has been formally added vide third supplementary chargesheet dated 17.11.2020. 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/188/336/427/307/308/302/201 /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. Abdul Gaffar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Petitioner herein is a law-abiding citizen who has deep roots in society, and that she is a married woman with two minor children. Further, she has no criminal antecedents and has never taken part in any form of violence. He has submitted that the Petitioner is being falsely implicated in the matter herein as a result of her religious identity and for exercising her fundamental right t