A Delhi court has granted bail to a Delhi riots accused as the court was not convinced that a Muslim man would join an unlawful assembly consisting of Hindus to beat up another Muslim man to death. The Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Vinod Yadav, while hearing the bail application, observed that the applicant, Aarif, was different from other co-accused persons in the case, namely Ajay @ Monu, Ashok Kumar, Shubham and Jitender whose bail application were already dismissed by the court.
The counsel for the applicant argued that he was falsely implicated and that there was an unexplained delay of 24 days in filing the FIR. The counsel submitted that a Muslim boy had lost his life in the matter and all the persons implicated in the matter are Hindus and it is quite appalling that a Muslim boy (i.e the applicant herein) shall become part of the “riotous mob” which mainly consisted of persons belonging to Hindu community. He further submitted that the eye witnesses presented by prosecution were planted witnesses. He further contended that the applicant was a “bonafide bystander” and he cannot be fastened with liability of riots with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
The prosecution contended that the applicant was part of the riotous mob and was found pelting stones while co-accused persons namely Shubham was found carrying a stick (palta) in his hand; Ajay @ Monu was found carrying a sword and Ashok was found carrying scissors tied in a stick and as such the riotous mob was armed with “deadly weapons”.
The court observed thus,
“The allegations against the applicant are that he was part/member of the “unlawful assembly”, the common object whereof was to cause maximum damage to the property, life and limb(s) of the members of other community. It is very obfuscatory that a muslim boy would become part of an “unlawful assembly” which mostly consisted of members of Hindu community, the common object whereof was to cause maximum damage to the property, life and limb(s) of the other community. So, prima facie, the applicant cannot be said to be part of “unlawful assembly” or share “common object” with them on the date of incident.”
The court also pointed out that the eyewitnesses did not spell out the role of the applicant in the unlawful assembly and that the applicant was not visible in any CCTV footage collected as evidence.
The court thus held that “it does not appeal to senses that applicant being a muslim would rub shoulder to shoulder in such a surcharged atmosphere with the members of “unlawful assembly”, which mainly consisted of the persons of Hindu community and would beat a muslim boy to death.”
The court decided to grant bail to the applicant as the investigation was complete and chargesheet had also been filed and since trial could take time “applicant cannot be made to incarcerate in jail for infinity merely on account of the fact that other persons who were part of the riotous mob have to be identified and arrested in the matter”.
Thus, the court granted bail on condition that the applicant furnishes a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount and also subject to the condition that he shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness in any manner, he shall maintain peace and harmony in the locality and that he shall appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing to attend the proceedings. The court also directed the applicant to furnish his mobile number to SHO, Dayalpur Police station and to keep it in working condition as also to install Aarogya Setu App.
The court clarified that anything stated in the order shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, as the case is at “pre-cognizance/pre-committal stage”.
The order may be read here.
Devangana Kalita creating ‘narrative to show’ that Kapil Mishra was behind riots: Delhi Police
Independent inquiry into the North East Delhi communal violence must be set up: CPI(M)
Delhi Police opposes bail granted to riot accused Jamia student to write exams