[Delhi Riots] 'Besides Disclosure Statement Nothing On Record Against Him' Delhi Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Vandalizing Temple [Read Order]
The Karkardooma Court (Delhi) on Wednesday (14th October) granted bail to a man named Gulfam, who was arrested for allegedly vandalizing a Shiv Temple, situated at Gali No.5, Moonga Nagar, Delhi during the Delhi Riots (in February 2020), after noting that besides his disclosure statement, prima facie there was nothing on record to connect him with the commission of the crime.While granting...
The Karkardooma Court (Delhi) on Wednesday (14th October) granted bail to a man named Gulfam, who was arrested for allegedly vandalizing a Shiv Temple, situated at Gali No.5, Moonga Nagar, Delhi during the Delhi Riots (in February 2020), after noting that besides his disclosure statement, prima facie there was nothing on record to connect him with the commission of the crime.
"The applicant cannot be made to incarcerate in jail for infinity merely on account of the fact that other persons who were part of the riotous mob have to be identified and arrested in the matter."(emphasis supplied)
Arguments Put forth by the Counsel of the Applicant
The counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the applicant has been in judicial custody in the matter since 08.05.2020. He has been falsely implicated in the matter. There is no legally sustainable evidence against him.
It was submitted that the applicant was not a part of the unlawful assembly/riotous mob. No recovery of any sort has been affected from the applicant. The TIP of the applicant was not got conducted in the matter.
Also, it was contended that no CCTV footage of the alleged incident is available on record which could depict the presence of the applicant at the scene of the crime on the date of the alleged incident.
It was argued that besides his own disclosure statement, there is no other incriminating evidence to connect the applicant with the commission of the crime in the present matter.
In the end, it was also submitted that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in connected cases, being case FIRs No.86/2020 and 116/2020 (both pertaining to PS Dayalpur) by this Court vide detailed orders dated 29.09.2020 and as such, the applicant is also entitled to grant of bail in the present matter as well, as the facts of all the aforesaid cases are somewhat similar in nature.
Arguments Put forth by the Special PP
The Special PP for the State argued that this is one of the cases of riots near "Chand Bagh" and "Brijpuri Puliya", which spread on Wazirabad Road and Karawal Nagar Road as well up to Sherpur Chowk, including Shiv Vihar tiraha and Mahalaxmi Enclave.
It was emphasized that the present case was registered pursuant to the receipt of DD No.30A to SI Shiv Charan which was regarding vandalism of Shiv Temple, situated at Gali No.5, Moonga Nagar, Delhi by the riotous mob on 25.02.2020.
It was argued that the applicant was formally arrested in the present matter on 05.03.2020 at Mandoli Jail, pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him in case FIR No.86/2020, PS Dayalpur.
It was further argued that the CDR location of the applicant confirmed his presence at the scene of the crime on the date of the incident.
Court's Observations
The Court observed that besides his (Applicant/Gulfam) own disclosure statement, prima facie there was nothing on record to connect the applicant with the commission of the crime in this case.
The Court also noted that the applicant has also been enlarged on bail in connected case being case FIR No.116/2020, PS Dayalpur by this Court vide detailed order dated 29.09.2020.
Further, the Court opined,
"Admittedly, the applicant has neither been named in the present FIR nor there are specific allegations against him. There is no CCTV footage available on record to corroborate the prosecution's case. There is no independent eye witness corroboration of the incident in question. Besides the case(s) of rioting, the prosecution has not been able to point out any previous involvement of the applicant in any other case(s). It is further a matter of record that the applicant is a resident of the same locality/area and as such, the CDR location of the applicant is also not of much consequence to the prosecution."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, applicant Gulfam was admitted to bail on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ld.CMM/Ld.Illaka MM/Ld.Duty MM, subject to the condition that:-
(a) He shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness in any manner
(b) He shall maintain peace and harmony in the locality
(c) He shall appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing to attend the proceedings in accordance with the terms of Bail Bond, which would be executed by him.
[Read Order]