New Delhi: While denying bail the bail to an accused who has been booked for damaging a mosque during the February communal riots in North-East Delhi, the Karkardooma Court (Delhi) recently 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.” (emphasis supplied)
“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.”
Before taking up the arguments of the prosecution, the Court noted that 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that his earlier bail applications were dismissed vide orders dated 15.06.2020, 23.06.2020, 15.07.2020 (dismissed as withdrawn) and 20.07.2020.
The counsel for the applicant vehemently argued before the Court that the applicant was falsely implicated in the matter.
He has been in judicial custody in the matter since 09.03.2020. It was argued that he was not 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.
It was contended that 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 was effected from him.
It was next contended that co-accused Amit Kumar had already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.06.2020 and the applicant was also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity, as the role assigned to the applicant was not different from the role assigned to co-accused Amit.
In the end, it was argued that 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, as trial of the case is likely to take long time. It is claimed that the applicant has clean past antecedents.
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.
In the end, it was argued that the applicant has not been able to show any change in circumstances after the dismissal of his earlier bail applications.
The Court noted,
“The applicant has neither been able to point out any change in circumstance(s) after the dismissal of last bail application 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, whose bail application stood already dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2020.”
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 work place; even the address of the workplace of the applicant has not been mentioned in the instant bail application.”