[Delhi Riots] 'Police Not Serious About His Alleged Involvement In The Matter', Delhi Court Grants Bail To 66 Yr Old Man [Read Order]

The Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav was of the opinion that police was not serious about his alleged involvement in the matter.

The case against the Applicant

The counsel for the applicant argued that 66-year-old applicant was falsely implicated in the matter by the investigating agency in connivance with complainant Yakub just to extort money from him.

It was further argued that said complainant Yakub was a tenant of the applicant, who did not pay rent and electricity charges for the last two and a half years and as such, the electricity connection in the tenanted shop was cut by the concerned authorities.

It was further argued that it was clear with the video footages that the applicant had nothing to do with the alleged incident of rioting. He was merely standing in front of his residence.

His lawyer claimed that the Applicant has been receiving phone calls from the police allegedly threatening to arrest him in the matter and in this regard they have also visited his house several times.

Court's analysis

The Court noted that prior to the eruption of communal riots, the complainant in the matter, Yakub had been the tenant in the shop, which belongs to the applicant (Uday Singh).

There was an existing dispute with regard to payment of rent/electricity charges qua the tenanted shop.

The Court perused the video furnished by the investigating agency and noted that though the applicant could be seen in the said video, he does not appear to be participating in the riots.

Also, the Court said that no independent witness had identified the applicant in the matter.

The Court observed that the co-accused in the matter namely Sumit (the real son of the applicant) had already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide detailed order dated 08.10.2020; while his another son namely Darshan Singh (who is also an accused in the matter) had been accorded the protection of anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.10.2020.

In these circumstances, the Court said,

"The applicant is a permanent resident of Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He is not a previous convict. The earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicant was probably dismissed without considering the material in charge sheet. It is also evident that even the police is not serious about the involvement of the applicant in the present case, as the incident allegedly took place on 24.02.2020 and the NBWs against the applicant have been obtained from the Court on 14.10.2020, when the anticipatory bail of co-accused Darshan was pending, which was ultimately granted on 21.10.2020." (emphasis supplied)

The Court also observed that the material on record was really short about the authenticity of viral video.

Without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court was of the view that the applicant deserved indulgence from the Court in the matter.

The applicant was directed to appear before IO on 30.10.2020 at 4.00 PM and shall continue to cooperate in the investigation. In case the IO wishes to arrest the applicant in the matter, he would give clear notice of one week to the applicant, so that he could avail of remedies available to him in accordance with law.

The instant bail application was accordingly disposed of.