The court noted that, when deciding whether or not to grant bail in a case of an unlawful assembly, it must hesitate before concluding that every member in that assembly has the intention of accomplishing the unlawful common object.
A petrol station that was burnt during the Delhi riots. Photo: Reuters/File
New Delhi: The Delhi high court granted bail to five of the people who police had claimed were involved in the murder of Delhi police head constable Ratan Lal and in causing head injuries to a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) during the northeast Delhi riots of February, 2020, LiveLaw has reported.
The court came down heavily on the ‘vagueness’ of evidence presented by police against one of the five and stressed on the duty of the courts to ensure that “the law does not become a tool for targeted harassment”.
The court’s censure of Delhi police over its investigation into the riots is the latest in a long line of criticism that trial courts have expressed against police.
This decision came on on Friday, September 3, after Justice Subramonium Prasad had, on August 16, reserved judgement on the 11 bail pleas filed in connection with FIR 60/2020, which had been filed at Dayalpur police station.
The FIR, filed by a constable, noted that on February 24, 2020, he and other police personnel were on law and order arrangement duty in Delhi’s Chand Bagh area. Around 1 pm, according to the statement, protestors began gathering with rods, bats and stones and, ignoring the directions of senior officers, became violent.
The FIR went on to note that “mild force” and gas shells were used to try and disperse the crowd, which prompted protestors to attack police personnel. It was during this attack that the FIR states that Ratan Lal and the DCP, Shahdara sustained their injuries, the former being declared dead on arrival at the hospital.
The five individuals granted bail were Mohammed Arif, Shadab Ahmad, Furkan, Suvaleen and Tabassum.
The bail proceedings, which took place in August, were lengthy and featured statements from each of the accused’s respective councils and counters from the prosecution, consisting of Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju and Special Public Prosecutor (PP) Amit Prasad.
Ahmed’s legal counsel, senior advocate Rebecca John, argued that her client was not present at the crime scene on the day when the riots occurred. She brought up the three witness statements that the prosecution had submitted and held that, at most, Ahmed can be accused of not complying with the orders from those around him.
John had also remarked that no one in the country is safe if the court does not take judicial notice of the prosecution’s manipulation of witnesses and other facets of the case.
Appearing for Arif, advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir claimed that there were discrepancies between the video footage submitted to the court and the witness statements of police constables, noting that these statements were recorded after a long delay.
The court noted that the applicability of Section 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the IPC, specifically read with Section 302 (punishment for murder), cannot be done on the basis of “vague evidence and general allegations”.
Advocate Dinesh Tiwari, similarly, noted that his client, Furkan, did not appear in any of the videos submitted by the prosecution and affirmed that he had not been part of the unlawful assembly. Similarly for Suvaleen, Tiwari contested that there is no evidence to place him in the assembly while also contesting the prosecution’s argument that the day’s violence was pre-planned.
ASG Raju, for the prosecution, had countered by noting that, just because a statement is delayed does not mean it is invalid. He also noted that people were afraid due to the prevailing circumstances, especially due to the then-novel coronavirus. He stated that the reliability of the statement is a matter for the trial.
While granting bail to these five accused on Friday, Justice Prasad noted that bail jurisprudence is an “intricate balance” in ensuring an individual’s personal liberty and ensuring that that liberty does not eventually disturb public order. He also noted that leaving an accused “languishing behind bars” as they await trial is “against the principles enshrined in our constitution,” ANI additionally reported.
Arif was arrested on March 11, 2020 and has been behind bars for 17 months.
While granting bail, the court noted that it is the court’s duty to ensure “no arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in the face of excess state power”.
The court also made observations on the necessity of bail and its own role in the exercise of criminal law.
“ It is the constitutional duty of the court to ensure that there is no arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in the face of excess of state power. 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 legislation. The Supreme Court has time and again held that courts need to be alive to both ends of the spectrum, i.e. the duty of the courts to ensure proper enforcement of criminal law, and the duty of the courts to ensure that the law does not become a tool for targeted harassment,” it said, according to LiveLaw’s transcript.
Notably, several activists and scholars, including Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Gulfisha Fatima and Sharjeel Imam, remain incarcerated over police’s claim that they are connected to the riots, in spite of questions over the validity of such claims.
SOURCE ; thewire.in/
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments