Delhi Riots- "An Innocent Person Was Brutally Murdered Just Because He Belonged To Other Community": Court Denies Bail To Accused In Suleman Murder Case

The Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav opined that the nature of allegations against the applicant are very serious and the possibility of applicant threatening or intimidating witnesses, if released on bail at this stage cannot be ruled out.

The matter before the Court

As per the prosecution's case, the case against the bail applicant (Ashish Kumar) relates to the murder of one person namely Suleman, who was murdered by the "riotous mob" near Prem Vihar puliya within the jurisdiction and his dead body was thrown into ganda nala during the North East Delhi riots in February 2020.

It was argued that the investigation revealed that the mob of 30­-40 persons had apprehended the victims namely Sanobar, Sunil Kumar and Suleman on 26^th February 2020 at about 8.30­-8.40 AM having dandas and rods in their hands.

Allegedly, the mob asked their ID cards which was shown by them. Thereafter, some persons from mob asked Sunil to leave the spot.

Thereafter, they started beating Sanober and Suleman mercilessly. Someone from the mob hit an iron rod on Sanober's head as a result of which he fell unconscious.

As alleged, the mob continued to beat Suleman. Sanober regained consciousness and managed to escape while the mob was busy assaulting Suleman.

Allegedly, the mob assaulted Suleman mercilessly with dandas, rods, kicks and fists on his face, head, chest, abdomen and other parts of the body.

When he fell unconscious, the mob threw him on the junction point of colony sewer in ganda nala near the nala wall and wall of the toilet from where he was taken to GTB Hospital.

ASI Kulbir got him admitted in GTB Hospital, where the victim died during treatment.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court remarked,

"From the evidence of a number of witnesses recorded in the matter, it is prima facie apparent that the 'riotous mob' armed with 'weapons' had abducted the deceased Suleman to commit his murder merely on account of the fact that he was from a different community."

Therefore, the Court noted that it cannot be said with certainty that the applicant did not have a common object with the other persons of unlawful assembly.

"The 'common object' of this kind of riotous mob can be easily inferred from their demeanor, depicted in the CCTV footage", said the Court.

Regarding the role of the Bail Applicant in the present case, the Court said,

"We have clear identification of the applicant through the evidence of public/eye witnesses namely Neeraj Kumar. He is also clearly visible in the CCTV footage walking behind the riotous mob that was prodding deceased Suleman with "dandas".

Importantly, the Court noted,

"A perusal of the post­mortem report of the deceased Suleman, reveals that he had received as many as 11 injuries, out of which as many as 7 injuries were so grave in nature that they itself were independently and collectively sufficient to cause death of any person in ordinary course of nature, which speaks volume about the intensity of dastardly act committed by the riotous mob during the course of communal riots."

Lastly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, vis­à­vis the gravity of offence, the Court did not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application was accordingly dismissed.

In related news, the Karkardooma Court (Delhi) last week denied bail to a man (named Shoaib) who was seen holding a 'Palta' (Spatula) during the February 2020 Delhi riots, though he argued before the Court that the Palta was used by the applicant in preparing Biryani.

Also, the Karkardooma Court (Delhi) recently refused to grant Regular bail to Shahrukh Pathan, whose infamous picture, showing him pointing a gun at a policeman, during February 2020 Delhi Riots had gone viral on the Social Media/Internet.

While denying him bail, the Additional Sessions Judge, Amitabh Rawat observed,

"What is material is the gravity of the offence and the allegations against the accused which are quite grave. And added to it is the conduct of the accused showing that he does not satisfy the triple test for grant of bail."

Importantly, the Court had also said that "the accused is alleged to have participated in the riots and has been duly identified. His picture speaks volumes about the involvement and the conduct of the accused on the said day."

Click Here To Download Order/Judgment

Read Order/Judgment