Image: Sajjad Hussain/AFP
A Delhi Court has made a crucial statement about the nature of the communal riots of North East Delhi, as it denied bail to a man accused of damaging a mosque. Delhi’s Karkardooma Court observed: “In recent communal riots in North-East Delhi more than 50 innocent people were killed by the rioters and the dastardly act of rioters in this matter is an act against the country’s secular structure.”
The report published by legal portal Live Law quoted Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav who said, “Considering the gravity of allegations, large-scale involvement of the applicant in the cases of riots, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.” This was the fifth bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The Court took into account the fact that his earlier bail applications were dismissed vide orders 15.06.2020, 23.06.2020, 15.07.2020 (dismissed as withdrawn) and 20.07.2020 reported Live Law.
However, the applicant’s counsel argued that his client ‘was falsely implicated in the matter, and has been in judicial custody since 09.03.2020. According to the counsel the accused was not even ‘present at the scene of the crime on the date of the incident and instead was at his workplace on the date of the alleged incident’ but was called by the police officials of PS Khajuri Khas and ‘falsely implicated in the matter. No recovery of any sort was effected from him.’
According to the news report it was also contended that the co-accused Amit Kumar had already been enlarged on bail by this Court on June 20, and the applicant was also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The lawyer said both were accused of similar roles in the incident. The lawyer argued that as the “investigation in the matter is complete; charge sheet has already been filed; the applicant is no more required for custodial interrogation; and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars in the matter,” adding that the “trial of the case is likely to take long time.”
SabrangIndia had reported the Delhi Minorities Commission’s visit to North East district in March 2020. The DMC Chairman Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan, and Member Kartar Singh Kochhar, visited the violence-affected areas of the North East District of Delhi and had noted, “At C-429 in gali no. 29 of Khajuri Khas, we saw the gutted Masjid Fatima where people had taken refuge in the belief that mobs will not attack a religious place.”
The Live Law reported that the Special PP for the State vehemently argued that the present case was a very serious matter, wherein the rioters had caused destruction at “Fatima Masjid”, situated in C-Block, Gali No.29, Khajuri Khas. “It was further argued that the applicant was clearly identified as one of the members of unlawful assembly, who had caused damage to the Fatima Masjid, namely Mehboob Alam and Akram.” According to the lawyer “the applicant has not been able to show any change in circumstances after the dismissal of his earlier bail application.”
The Court has noted that the applicant has “neither been able to point out any change in circumstance(s) after the dismissal of last bail application of the of the applicant vide order dated 20.07.2020 nor he has been able to differentiate the role of the applicant from that of co-accused Mithan Singh, who whose bail application stood already dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2020″ added Live Law adding that the Court further opined, “Besides, making bald averments, the learned counsel for the applicant has not placed on record any material to prima facie show that the applicant was not present at the scene of the crime on the date of the incident and instead was present at his workplace; even the address of the workplace of the applicant has not been mentioned in the instant bail application.” The bail application was dismissed.
The court order, as shared by Live Law may be read here:
FIR No.121/2020
State V/s Kundan (FIR No.121/2020: PS Khajuri Khas)
Bail Application No.1144/2020
State V/s Kundan
THROUGH WEBEX VIDEO CONFERENCING
Shri Abbas Khan, Ld. Counsel for accused Kundan/applicant.
ORDER
I have heard arguments advanced at bar by both the sides and perused the report filed in the matter as well as the chargesheet.
The learned counsel for the applicant has very vehemently argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has been in judicial custody in the matter since 09.03.2020. He was not present at the scene of crime on the date of incident and instead was at his work place on the date of alleged incident. On 10.03.2020, he was called by the police officials of PS Khajuri Khas and falsely implicated in the matter. No recovery of any sort has been effected from him. It is next contended that co-accused Amit Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.06.2020 and the applicant is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity, as the role assigned to the applicant is not different from the role assigned to co-accused Amit. He has further argued that “pre-trial detention has been deprecated by the Courts”; “bail is the rule and jail is an exception”. In the end, it is argued that the investigation in the matter is complete; chargesheet has already been filed; the applicant is no more required for custodial interrogation; and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars in the matter, as trial of the case is likely to take long time. It is claimed that the applicant has clean past antecedents.
U/s: 147/148/149/435/436/34 IPC & Section 3/4 PDPP Act
PS: Khajuri Khas
23.09.2020
Present: Shri Manoj Chaudhary, Ld. Special PP for the State alongwith
IO, SI Vipin.
State V/s Kundan (FIR No.121/2020: PS Khajuri Khas)
3. Before taking up the arguments of prosecution, it is pertinent to mention here that this the fifth bail application filed on behalf of applicant. His earlier bail applications were dismissed vide orders dated 15.06.2020, 23.06.2020, 15.07.2020 (dismissed as withdrawn) and 20.07.2020.
4. Per contra, learned Special PP for the State has very vehemently argued that the present case is a very serious matter, wherein the rioters had caused destruction at “Fatima Masjid”, situated in C-Block, Gali No.29, Khajuri Khas. It is further argued that the applicant has been clearly identified as one of the members of unlawful assembly, who had caused damage to the Fatima Masjid, namely Mehboob Alam and Akram. It is further argued that even after grant of bail to co-accused Amit, the subsequent bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed and as such, the ground of parity is not available to the applicant. It is further frankly conceded by learned Special PP that at the time of hearing of the bail application of co-accused Amit, sincere efforts were not made by the prosecution to point out the role of applicant properly before this Court. In the end, it is argued that the applicant has not been able to show any change in circumstances after dismissal of his earlier bail applications.
5. This Court has recently dismissed the bail applications of two accused persons namely Mithan and Jony Kumar in case FIR No.233/2020, PS Khajuri Khas, vide detailed order dated 17.07.2020. Furthermore, the bail application of co-accused Mithan Singh in the present matter was also dismissed by this Court vide detailed order dated 29.08.2020. The learned counsel for the applicant has neither been able to point out any change in circumstance(s) after dismissal of last bail application of the applicant vide order dated 20.07.2020 nor he has been able to differentiate the role of applicant from that of co-accused Mithan Singh, who bail application stood already dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2020. Besides, making bald averments, the learned counsel for the applicant has not placed on record any material to prima facie show that the applicant was not present at the scene of crime on the date of incident and instead was present at his work place; even the address of work place of the applicant has not been mentioned in the instant bail application.
6. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, particularly bearing in mind that in recent communal riots in North-East Delhi more than 50 innocent people were killed by the rioters and the dastardly act of rioters in this matter is an act against the country’s secular structure.Considering the gravity of allegations, large-scale involvement of the applicant in the cases of riots, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.
7. It is hereby clarified that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, as the case is at “pre-cognizance stage”.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the learned counsel for the applicant
through electronic mode.
VINOD YADAV
Digitally signed by VINOD YADAV Date: 2020.09.23 16:28:11 +05’30’
(VINOD YADAV)
DUTY JUDGE/ASJ-03(NE)/KKD/23.09.
Related:
Over 2,000 people Brought in for violence : Delhi Minorities Panel Chief
Delhi violence: LG order appointing MHA picked officers way to defend the
Is Delhi Police hiding key information, documents of riot cases?