"His Role Is Similar To Role Of Co-Accused": Delhi Court Grants Bail To Man In Head Constable Ratan Lal Murder Case Pursuant To High Court Order
A Delhi Court on Monday granted bail to one Nasir in connection with case in murder of Head Constable Ratan Lal during the North-East Delhi riots that rocked the national capital last year, on the ground of parity of bail granted by the High Court recently to co-accused Furkan.Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav observed that the role of Nasir was similar to that attributed to co-accused...
A Delhi Court on Monday granted bail to one Nasir in connection with case in murder of Head Constable Ratan Lal during the North-East Delhi riots that rocked the national capital last year, on the ground of parity of bail granted by the High Court recently to co-accused Furkan.
Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav observed that the role of Nasir was similar to that attributed to co-accused Furkan who was granted bail by the High Court last week in FIR 60/2020 PS DayalPur.
It was the case of prosecution that the difference between role of Furkan and Nasir was that the Nasir was seen in the CCTV camera of gali no.2 of Chand Bagh with a stick and that he was found running towards Scene of Crime.
"I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar by both the sides and I am of the considered opinion that role of the applicant is similar to the role of co-accused Furkan in this matter," the Court said while granting bail to Nasir.
About the High Court Order
Specific allegation against Furkan was that he was seen in various CCTV footages which showed the dislocation and deactivation of the CCTV cameras. It was submitted by SPP Amit Prasad that the same was done in a synchronised and planned manner.
The High Court had observed that presence of Furkan in the video footage with a danda in his hand near his residence does not justify his continued incarceration and that the authenticity of the same was a matter of trial.
"This Court is of the opinion that it would not be prudent to keep the Petitioner behind bars for an undefined period of time at this stage. The Petitioner has roots in society, and, therefore, there is no danger of him absconding and fleeing," the High Court had observed.
"It is the Constitutional duty of the Court to ensure that there is no arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in the face of excess of State power. Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and Courts must exercise their jurisdiction to uphold the tenets of personal liberty, subject to rightful regulation of the same by validly enacted legislation. The Supreme Court has time and again held that Courts need to be alive to both ends of the spectrum, i.e. the duty of the Courts to ensure proper enforcement of criminal law, and the duty of the Courts to ensure that the law does not become a tool for targeted harassment," the Court had added.
About FIR 60/2020 (P.S. DayalPur)
FIR 60/2020 was registered on the statement of a Constable who was on the law and order arrangement duty with other staff members at Chand Bagh area on 24th February last year.
It was stated that around 1 PM protesters carrying danda, lathies, baseball bats, iron rods and stones started gathering at the main Wazirabad road and did not pay heed to the directions of senior officers thereby becoming violent.
It was further stated that after repeated warnings to the protestors, mild force and gas shells were used to disperse the crowd. According to the Constable, violent protesters started beating people as well as police personnel, due to which he himself sustained injury on his right elbow and hand.
He also stated that the protestors attacked DCP Shahdara, ACP Gokulpuri, and Head Constable Rattan Lal due to which they fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. All the injured persons were taken to hospital, where it was found that HC Rattan Lal had already died due to injuries sustained and DCP Shahdara was unconscious and had sustained head injuries.
Apart from granting bail to Furkan, the High Court had granted bail to four others including Mohd. Arif, Shadab Ahmad, Suvaleen and Tabassum.
In the case of Mohd. Arif, the Court noted that the applicability of Section 149 IPC, specifically read with Section 302, cannot be done on the basis of vague evidence and general allegations. When there is a crowd involved, at the juncture of grant or denial of bail, the Court must hesitate before arriving at the conclusion that every member of the unlawful assembly inhabits a common intention to accomplish the unlawful common object, it had said.
Title: State v. Nasir