The judgment emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to uphold personal liberty while ensuring proper enforcement of criminal law, and the court's discretion in granting bail based on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The petitioner seeks bail in FIR No. 70/2020 dated 27.02.2020 registered at PS Bhajanpura for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 396, 436, 455, 201, 188, 34 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 on 25.02.2020, around 11:00 AM., the complainant had gone to purchase milk from a nearby shop when he received a call from his son Asif informing him that a huge crowd of around 100 people had gathered near their house in  support of NRC and CAA. The crowd was chanting slogans of 'Jai Shree Ram'. The crowd, thereafter, entered their house after breaking open the locks, and set it on fire. It is stated that the complainant's family members and employees rushed to the top floor of the house. The complainant's family members and workers were safely rescued from the roof of his residence, which was made possible by the rescue operation launched by the police in support with the locals of the vicinity.

4. It is stated that the complainant's mother, Smt. Akbari, who was 85 years old could not reach the rooftop due to her age. After extinguishing the fire, her body was found lying on a folding bed and was recovered from the second floor. She was taken to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, where she was declared brought dead vide MLC No. D-45. A Post Mortem was conducted at GTB Hospital itself and vide PM Report No. 345/2020 dated 28.02.2020, the cause of death was opined as Asphyxia as a result of an ante-mortem inhalation of smoke. It is further stated that the crowd looted Rs. 8,00,000 in cash and a box containing gold and silver jewellery and other valuable articles from their residence

5. It is stated that the investigation of the said case was transferred from North East to Special Investigation Team-II, Crime Branch, Delhi and subsequently to Special Investigation Unit-I, Crime Branch, Delhi vide order No. 8266-74/AC-III/C&T/PHQ dated 27.02.2020 and No. 216/S)/DCP/Crime (SIU & ISC) dated 04.03.2020. The investigation was undertaken by Insp. Pankaj Arora.

6. It is stated that the petitioner was arrested on 30.03.2020 and has been in custody since then. The chargesheet was filed on 07.06.2020 and on 06.04.2021 the charges were framed by the Trial Court.

7. The petitioner had filed Bail Application No. 398/2020 before the Court of Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2020. Thereafter, another bail application vide IA No. 05/2021 in SC No. 17/2021 was filed before the Court of Sessions Judge which was subsequently dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2021.

8. Mr. Sanjiv Dagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter and that there exists no evidence which can prove the connection of the Petitioner to the incident beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the FIR was registered on 27.02.2020, that is, two days after the incident occurred and the name of the accused is nowhere mentioned therein. He further submitted that the accused was not even called for investigation and was directly arrested. Further, the grounds of arrest were not explained to the accused during the time of arrest.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the time of the alleged incident is stated to be about 11:00AM on 25.02.2020, whereas, the PCR calls were made at 1:53PM and 3:29PM. Therefore, there has been a huge delay in reporting the incident to the police which in turn places the instant case under suspicion.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complainant was not present during the incident and was informed of the same on phone by his son. He submitted that the complainant did not mention the name of the petitioner herein vide his statement dated 08.03.2020.The statement dated 08.03.2020, of the co