Delhi Riots: HC Denies Bail To Two Men Accused Of Being Part Of Mob That Killed Muslim Men, Says Possibility Of Them Threatening Sole Public Witness
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to two men namely Ajay and Shubham accused of killing four Muslim men during the North East Delhi riots which took place in the national capital last year observing that there was a possibility of them threatening the sole public witness in the matter. Taking note of the fact that the two were in custody since April last year, Justice Subramonium...
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to two men namely Ajay and Shubham accused of killing four Muslim men during the North East Delhi riots which took place in the national capital last year observing that there was a possibility of them threatening the sole public witness in the matter.
Taking note of the fact that the two were in custody since April last year, Justice Subramonium Prasad said:
"Bail jurisprudence attempts to bridge the gap between the personal liberty of an accused and ensuring social security remains intact. It is the intricate balance between securing the personal liberty of an individual and ensuring that this liberty does not lead to an eventual disturbance of public order."
"Therefore, a duty resides in this Court to be conscious of whether granting of bail can lead to a possible impediment in the conducting of investigation that can cause inevitable rupture in public order."
Ajay had filed bail pleas in three different FIRs registered under Dayal Pur police station under sec. 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 of IPC regarding the bodies of four persons, namely, Zakir, Mehtaab, Ashfaaq Husain, Jameel which were recovered during the riots. Since the time and place of their deaths were different, separate FIRs were registered.
On the other hand, Shubham had filed the bail plea in one of the FIRs relating to the death of one Ashfaaq Hussain.
Denial Of Bail To Ajay
It was argued on behalf of Ajay that the entire investigation and FIRs were based on the statement of the sole eyewitness's statement registered under sec 161 Cr.P.C.
It was further submitted that the said statement was false as indicated by the fact that despite knowing all the accused persons involved, the eyewitness failed to name any one of them in his PCR calls that were made wherein he had described the incident leading to the death of the four victims.
It was also argued that while Ajay was visible in the CCTV footage, but his presence only indicated that he was merely trying to defend the people of his community from the attack of a mob.
On the other hand, it was the case of the prosecution that the CCTV footage was retrieved from the nearby store and an analysis indicated that a mob had caught three Muslim boys and started beating them brutally.
Furthermore, it was submitted that the CCTV footage revealed that Ajay was carrying a sword and on the basis of the same he was arrested.
It was also argued that Ajay had confessed that before the date of incident, there had been a buzz that some event would occur and, therefore, he along with other neighbours had equipped themselves with a variety of weapons.
Hearing both the sides, the Court noted that a perusal of the three chargesheets revealed that during interrogation, Ajay had confessed that due to the protest and slogans raised by Muslims against CAA and NRC, his religious sentiments had been hurt and that agitated him to join the gathering against the Muslim community.
The Court also took note of the fact that the material on record indicated that Ajay was recognised in the CCTV footage with a sword in his hand and his CDR indicated that he was present at the scene of the alleged incident. However, the Court added that authenticity of the same was a matter of trial which could mot be delved into at the time of considering bail.
"The sole public witness in this matter resides in the same locality as the Petitioner herein. This Court, while being cognizant of the fact that the Petitioner herein has been in custody since 09.04.2020, cannot discount the issue that there exists a possibility of the Petitioner herein influencing or threatening the sole public witness," the Court said.
Denial Of Bail To Shubham
The Court noted that the chargesheet revealed that a stick was retrieved from his house after which indulged in the riots. It further stated that Shubham also threw stones at the Muslims and that when he witnessed a crowd beating three Muslim boys, he joined in the same.
It was also noted that according to the chargesheet, Shubham was seen carrying a stick along with the violent mob.
Furthermore, the eyewitness had identified Shy ham pelting stones and carrying a stick on the day of the alleged incident. After photos of deceased Zakir and Ashfaaq Hussain were shown to the eyewitness, he identified them as two of the three boys who were being brutally beaten up by the mob.
"A perusal of the material indicates that the Petitioner herein was recognised on the CCTV footage with a stick in his hand and his CDR indicates that he was present at the scene of the alleged incident. However, the authenticity of the same is a matter of trial and cannot be delved into at this juncture," the Court noted.
Considering the submission of the prosecution that the examination of the sole public witness was remaining and was fixed for January 20, 2022, the Court, while denying bail to the two, granted liberty to them to approach the High Court for bail after the examination of the sole public witness is conducted.
"The learned Trial Court is requested to examine the sole public witness preferably on a day-to-day basis and conclude the examination preferably within one month from the date of the order," it added.
Title: AJAY @ MONU v. STATE OF N C T OF DELHI
Click Here To Read Order For Shubham