"Delhi Riots Are Gaping Wound In Conscience Of A Nation Aspiring To Be A Major Global Power: Delhi Court Denies Bail To One In Murder Case

Observing that Delhi Riots are a gaping wound in the conscience of a nation aspiring to be a major global power, a Delhi Court has rejected the bail plea of Ankit Chaudhary accused in the murder case of one Aamin, whose body was found on March 3 when the riots erupted in the national capital last year.

Forming a prima facie opinion that the accused was present at the spot and was "exhorting the rioters of a particular community who could have killed anybody on his instigation", Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav observed that the accused along with others were members of a Whatsapp Group namely "Kattar Hindu Etka" wherein the language used appeared to be "highly communal in nature, clearly promoting disharmony, enmity and feelings of hatred towards the members of a particular community."

"It is common knowledge that the dreary days of 25/26.02.2020 saw parts of North-East Delhi gripped by a communal frenzy, reminiscent of carnage during the days of partition. Soon, the riots spread like wildfire across the smoke-grey skyline of Capital, engulfing new areas and snuffing out more and more innocent lives. The Delhi riots 2020 are a gaping wound in the conscience of a nation aspiring to be a major global power. The allegations against the applicant are extremely grave in nature." The Court observed while rejecting the bail plea.

The facts of the case date back to March 28, 2020 wherein the Investigation in the murder case was transferred to the SIT, Crime Branch. On April 4, Ankit was arrested who made disclosure statement regarding commission of crime alongwith other co-accused persons.

Submitting that he was falsely implicated in the case, counsel appearing on behalf of Ankit submitted before the Court that he was a victim of arbitrary and autocratic investigation which was apparent from the fact that besides the case in hand, he had been falsely implicated in eight other cases of murder.

Furthermore, it was stated that the public witnesses cited in the case were planted and that some of them were themselves members of the WhatsApp group.

However, he had denied being related to the alleged WhatsApp group directly or indirectly.

On the other hand, the SPP appearing for the State submitted before the Court that Aamin was brutally murdered by the riotous mob "merely on account of the fact that he belonged to a different (muslim) community."

It was also stated that the language used in the WhatsApp group was highly communal in nature, clearly promoting disharmony, enmity and feelings of hatred towards the members of a particular community.

Praying for rejection of the bail plea, SPP argued since many accomplices were still absconding and had not been arrested till date, there was every chance that Ankit, being resident of the same area, may threaten the public witnesses or tamper with the evidence if released on bail.

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the Court was of the view that from the behavior of "riotous mob", the "common object" can be inferred.

"Though, applicant may not be a member of the said Whatsapp group, however, it is noted that in paragraph 11 (iv), it has been admitted on behalf of applicant that he had telephonic interaction(s) with co-accused persons; whether the said interaction over phone was incidental or otherwise cannot be decided at this stage. A perusal of the location of deceased prior to his death and the location of applicant at that time is found to be at the same spot." The Court observed.

Furthermore, the Court held thus:

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, gravity of offence, categorical identification of applicant by aforesaid independent public witnesses; CDR location of the applicant having been found at the spot/SOC on the date and time of incident; applicant himself having admitted to have interacted with the co-accused/members of Whatsapp group "Kattar Hindu Ekta" and the fact that said witnesses are residents of same locality and if released on bail at this stage, he can can threaten or intimidate the witnesses; the charge in the matter is yet to be framed. As such, I am not inclined to admit the applicant on bail at this stage. The application under consideration accordingly stands dismissed."

Title: State V/s Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauzi

Click Here To Read Order