‘Protest fundamental in democracy’: Bail for 5 booked in Delhi riots cases

In five separate verdicts, Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi high court said no substantial evidence has been obtained against the accused to keep them in prolonged incarceration

The Delhi high court on Friday granted bail to five people booked for the murder of head constable Rattan Lal during the riots in February last year, noting that the right to protest and express dissent is fundamental in a democratic polity, and added that just the act of protesting should not be employed as a weapon to justify incarcerating those exercising this right.

At least 50 people were killed and over 700 injured during the riots in northeast Delhi last year. (AP)

Justice Subramonium Prasad, while ordering the release of Furkan, Suvleen, Tabassum (all of whom go by single names), Mohammad Arif and Shadab Ahmad, said that every member of an unlawful assembly cannot be booked for the murder only on the basis of “general and vague allegations” and they cannot be left to languish in jails.

“There cannot be an umbrella assumption of guilt on behalf of every accused by the court, and every decision must be taken based on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances in the matter therein. This principle, therefore, gains utmost importance when the court considers the question of grant or denial of bail,” the judge said while granting bail to the five accused.

Furkan, Arif, Ahmad, Suvleen and Tabassum were arrested on April 1, March 11, April 6, May 17 and October 3 last year, respectively.

In five separate verdicts, Justice Prasad said no substantial evidence has been obtained against the accused to keep them in prolonged incarceration. He said that the principle of bail attempts to bridge the gap between the personal liberty of an accused and ensuring that public order remains intact.

“It is egregious and against the principles enshrined in our Constitution to allow an accused to remain languishing behind bars during the pendency of the trial”.

“Therefore, the court, while deciding an application for grant of bail, must traverse this intricate path very carefully and thus take multiple factors into consideration before arriving at a reasoned order whereby it grants or rejects bail,” the court said.

According to the police, on February 24, 2020, a crowd carrying various weapons convened at the main Wazirabad Road and refused to abide by the police’s orders to disperse.

The police, represented by additional solicitor general SV Raju, argued that the crowd soon got out of control and started pelting stones at officers and more than 50 personnel suffered injuries, while Lal was shot dead. He had added that the protests turned violent, and the agitators burnt vehicles, and other properties in the vicinity.

The court, however, said that a fourth charge sheet has been filed in the case and trial in the matter is likely to take a long time and so it was not prudent to keep the accused behind bars for an undefined period of time.

The judge said that merely because Ahmad and Tabassum were one of the organisers of the protests and were in touch with other participants, it is insufficient to justify that the duo were involved in the pre-planning of the alleged incident.

It said the accused have roots in society, and, therefore, there was no danger of them absconding and fleeing and directed them to furnish a personal bond of ₹35,000 each and a surety of the like amount.

Regarding the role of woman accused, Tabassum, the high court said the record revealed that she has not been caught on any video footage in the vicinity of the protest site, and the contention that a few women wearing burqas have been caught assaulting police officials in a video does not have any weight at this juncture as she cannot be identified in the clip.

With respect to Furkan, the court said that there was no electronic evidence to establish that he was present at the scene of the crime and his call detail records are inconclusive as he was a resident of the local area.

The court also said that accused Arif was not visible in the CCTV video relied upon and clothes similar to that of his have been worn by multiple others.

It held that Ahmad’s CDRs and cell ID details pointed that he had reached the scene of crime after the commission of the alleged offence, i.e, the murder of Rattan Lal.

“At this juncture, it appears that the statements of the police officers that have been recorded are wholly contradictory to the CDR and cell ID details that are on record,” it said.

The court directed the accused to not leave the national capital without permission of the court and not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.