Jahangirpuri riots: No bail extension for youth who was part of mob

The accused, Neeraj Sarkar, had sought extension of his interim bail by 90 days to prepare for entrance exams for pursuing his higher studies.

Observing that a person cannot take the shed of his fundamental rights after resorting to communal riots and none can be permitted to resort to violence in the name of religion, a Delhi court dismissed the bail plea of a man accused of rioting in north-west Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area on Hanuman Jayanti (April 6) this year.

At Jahangirpuri, after the April 16 clashes. (Sanchit Khanna /HT PHOTO)

“The rights of the accused/applicant are not absolute in nature and they are subject to the rights of other people and law and order situations. No one is above law and no one can be allowed to indulge in violence and riots in the name of religion. The accused cannot take the shed of his fundamental rights (under Article 25 to 28 of the Constitution of India) by indulging in violence and riots,” the judge said in an order of June 14.

The accused, Neeraj Sarkar, had sought extension of his interim bail by 90 days to prepare for entrance exams for pursuing his higher studies.

Advocate Mukesh Katyan, appearing for Sarkar, argued that the accused was a devotee of Lord Hanuman and on the eve of Hanuman Jayanti, he had participated in the procession for which proper permission was taken from the police authorities.

Additional public prosecutor (APP) Vineet Dahiya, appearing for the police, opposed the bail plea on the grounds that the application was not maintainable. For the purpose of hearing a bail application, the accused must be in custody and, at present, the accused is not in the court -- rather, he was appearing for his Class 12 exams.

Dismissing his plea, additional sessions judge Virender Kumar Kharta said the rights of the accused are subject to rights of other people and law and order situation. It reiterated that the fundamental rights of an accused are not absolute and come with reasonable restrictions.

“...All persons are equally entitled to the freedom of conscience and right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. However, the said fundamental right under Article 25 to 28 of the Constitution, are not absolute and are subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions of the Constitution of India,” the judge said.

Observing that education is a fundamental right of any citizen, the judge said it has been protected by granting interim bail to the accused to appear for his Cass 12 examination.

“The purpose of interim bail has already been completed... This court is of the considered opinion that the submissions of the counsel for extension of interim bail...is vague in nature,” the order said.

.