The court held that the identification of the petitioner as part of the mob was questionable, and considering the lengthy pre-trial detention and mental health condition, bail was granted.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 186, 332, 333, 307, 302, 201, 120-B, 34 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Sections 3, 4 - Arms Act, 1959 - Bail application filed in case relating to riots, resulting in fatalities and injuries to police personnel - The petitioner, among the accused, was not named in the initial FIR or subsequent charge sheets until the fourth supplementary one, raising concerns about identification and evidence against him - Court noted lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the violent acts alleged, including possession of weapons, and a mental health diagnosis of Acute Transient Psychotic Disorder - The prosecution's reliance on CCTV footage was examined, with issues regarding identification raised - (Paras 1-20)

(B) Bail - A court must consider the length of pre-trial detention, the nature of allegations, and whether further imprisonment is warranted given the circumstances and mental health of the accused - The petitioner had been in custody since 19.11.2020 and trial would take substantial time - Thus, the court found grounds to grant bail. (Paras 17-18)

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking bail in FIR No. 60/2020, registered at police station Dayalpur, for the offences under Sections 186 /353/332/333/323/109/144/147/148/149/153-A/188/336/427/307/97/412/302/201/120-B/34 IPC read with Section 3 /4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, read with Sections 25 /27/54/59 ARMS ACT ,1959.

2. The FIR in question was registered on 25.02.2020 at the instance of Constable Sunil, posted at police station Dayalpuri, Delhi, who on 24.02.2020 along with other members of the police team was deployed at Chand Bagh, Delhi, and were brutally attacked by mob during riots. In the alleged incident, Head Constable Ratan Lal lost his life and DCP Shahdara and ACP Gokulpuri sustained grievous injuries.

3. During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined; their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded; crime spot was inspected by the crime team; CCTV footages were retrieved from the cameras installed by GNCTD and private persons; other exhibits were collected and sent to FSL for expert opinion. Upon analysis of the CCTV footages, the persons involved in the riots were identified and 22 persons, including petitioner, were arrested. Consequently, charge sheet in this case was filed on 08.06.2020. Thereafter, four supplementary charge sheets have been filed on 30.06.2020, 20.08.2020, 17.11.2020 and 30.12.2020 respectively.

4. At the hearing, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that petitioner's name was not there in the FIR in question and in the charge sheet. Thereafter, prosecuting agency further investigated the case and filed three supplementary charge sheets, still petitioner was not charge sheeted. However, his name has been mentioned in the fourth supplementary charge sheet and the only allegations against the petitioner is that in the footage of CCTV camera installed by GNCT of Delhi and a video shot by one Vishal Chaudhary, he is seen as part of the mob and pelting stones.

5. On the aforesaid aspect, it has further been pleaded on behalf of petitioner that vide order dated 28.11.2020 petitioner was granted bail in FIR No. 136/2020, where the prosecution had alleged that in the CCTV footage of PWD camera, petitioner was seen carrying a `danda' in his hand, whereas in the CCTV footage played before this Court, petitioner is seen walking empty handed. Further pleaded that in the CCTV footage the size of the person sought to be identified is less than 01 cm and the prosecution itself is unable to identify who actually the accused is.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has relied upon testimony of Head Constable Mukesh, whose statement has already been rejected by the trial court in order dated 28.11.2020. Further submitted that in the alleged incident, unfortunately Head Constable Ratan Lal lost his life but it is not the case of prosecution that the petitioner was found in possession of pistol or rifle. Learned counsel also submitted that no weapon of offence has been recovered from petitioner and being the local resident of the area in question, it is obvious that call detail record would show petitioner's presence in the said area.

7. In addition, learned counsel submitted that petitioner is suffering from 'Acute Transient Psychotic Disorder' (ATPD) and he was admitted at Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, Dilshad Garden, Delhi (IHBAS) from 19.12.2019 to 24.12.2019 and later was examined again on 17.02.2020 and was diagnosed having a disease in the nature of 'acute ailment' and, therefore, on 24.02.2020 petitioner was suffering from the above mental disorder.

8. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that Mohd. Danish, co-accused in the present FIR case, has been granted bail by this Court and petitioner has a good case on medical grounds as well as on merits and so, this petition deserves to be allowed.

9. On the contrary, learned Special Publ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document