Delhi Riots-Police Version That 'Muslim Rioter Rubbing Shoulders With Hindu Rioters To Kill Muslim Boy' Doesn't Appeal To Senses: Delhi Court Grants Bail

On Friday (11th Decemebr), the Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav was hearing two bail applications (related to two different cases) filed by the same person (named Aarif) in respect of death of two young boys namely Zakir & Ashfaq Hussain.

The allegations against the applicant are that he was part/member of the "unlawful assembly", the common object whereof was to cause maximum damage to the property, life and limb(s) of the members of other community.

Arguments put forth

It was argued by the Counsel for the Bail applicant that a Muslim boy had lost his life in the matter and all the persons implicated in the matter are Hindus and so, it was quite appalling that a Muslim boy (i.e. the bail applicant) shall become part of the "riotous mob" which mainly consisted of persons belonging to Hindu community.

On the other hand, Special PP for the State contended that the applicant was part of the unlawful assembly/riotous mob that had inflicted severe injuries upon deceased Zakir & Ashfaq Hussain, which ultimately resulted in their death.

It was further argued that regular bail applications of several co-accused persons namely Ajay @ Monu, Ashok Kumar, Shubham and Jitender have already been dismissed by this Court vide various orders and as such, the instant bail applications were also liable to be dismissed.

Court's Observation

The Court, in its order said,

"It is very obfuscatory that a Muslim boy would become part of an "unlawful assembly" which mostly consisted of members of Hindu community, the common object whereof was to cause maximum damage to the property, life and limb(s) of the other community."

In this backdrop, the Court said that prima facie, the applicant couldn't be said to be part of "unlawful assembly" or share "common object" with them on the date of incident.

"As such, once the provisions of Section 141 IPC are not attracted in case of applicant, then he will also go out of the ambit of Section 149 IPC", said the Court.

Furthermore, the Court also said that once the applicant is out of the ambit of Section 149 IPC, then he cannot be fastened with the liability under Section 302 IPC.

While noting that the applicant was not visible in any CCTV/video footage, the Court observed that the eye witnesses "have not specifically spelt out the role of applicant in the matter and their statements prima facie appears to general one."

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, applicant Aarif was admitted to bail.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order