"Not Seen Instigating The Crowd": Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Another Accused In Jahangirpuri Riots Case

The Delhi High Court today granted bail to one Babuddin, an accused in relation to the clashes that broke out in April in city's Jahangirpuri area during a Hanuman Jayanti procession.

Noting that Babuddin was in custody since April 27, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Yogesh Khanna granted bail after observing that he was no more required for further investigation.

The Court also noted that chargesheet qua the accused has already been filed and that a co-accused was also recently granted bail in the FIR in question.

The FIR was registered under sec. 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 332, 323, 427, 436, 307 ,120B of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 27 of the Arms Act.

As per the prosecution, Babuddin was the leader of the crowd and was also identified in two of CCTV footages.

On this, the Court observed that a perusal of the CCTV footages revealed that Babuddin was just standing and was not seen instigating the crowd.

"On further query the learned APP on instructions submit one of the witness namely ASI Joginder has deposed he was allegedly leading the crowd. Though the State has taken various dates to bring on record various other CCTV footages to show this fact but they have not placed the same on record as yet," the Court noted.

The Court thus granted bail to him subject to furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety of the amount.

While denying Babuddin bail in the matter, the Trial Court had observed that he was identified on the basis of CCTV footage recorded on the day of the incident and also by one eye-witness. It was also observed that the statement of the eye-witness, a head constable, reflected a prima facie role of the accused in the riots.

According to the accused, neither his shop or house nor the camera, on which footage the prosecution relied upon, falls in the path of the said procession.

The bail plea submitted that the accused had no connection with the co accused Ansar and the that the prosecution failed itself to produce material evidence to prove the association.

It was also submitted that the Trial Court failed in appreciating and considering the true facts and circumstances with respect to the Applicant in the correct chain of events.

Advocates KC Mittal, Abid Ahmad, Mobina Khan and Yugansh Mittal, appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: Babuddin v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 818