Existing User Account
Subscribe Premium

[Delhi Riots] 'Petitioner Is Not Seen In Any Of The 11 Video Footages', Delhi HC Grants Bail To Man In Riots Case [Read Order]

Sparsh Upadhyay

14 Oct 2020 4:46 PM IST

    • [Delhi Riots] Petitioner Is Not Seen In Any Of The 11 Video Footages, Delhi HC Grants Bail To Man In Riots Case [Read Order]

    The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (13th October) granted bail to a man named Kasim, who was arrested for allegedly rioting during the Delhi Riots (in February 2020), after noting that petitioner was not seen in any of the 11 footages which were received from different social media.The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait was hearing the plea filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read...

    The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (13th October) granted bail to a man named Kasim, who was arrested for allegedly rioting during the Delhi Riots (in February 2020), after noting that petitioner was not seen in any of the 11 footages which were received from different social media.

    The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait was hearing the plea filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No.91/2020 dated 02.03.2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/453-A/505/436/307/120-B/34 IPC and Sections 27/30 Arms Act, registered at PS Dayalpur, Delhi.

    Arguments by SPP

    The SPP opposed the Bail petition by stating that an injured person named Ajay had identified the rioters including the petitioner (Kasim) as he had been living in the same area from past many years.

    During the course of the investigation, injured Ajay was examined who stated that on 25.2.2020, around 4:00 pm, he came out of his house to purchase some household articles and when he reached near Lakhpat School, Chand Bagh, he found that riots broke out in the whole area of Chand Bagh and nearby areas.

    When he reached near Tahir Hussain's house, he saw angry mob on the terrace of the said house, who were pelting stones, firing gunshots and throwing petrol bombs upon the houses of the Hindu community.
    He Stated that the mob was chanting anti-communal slogans. Other boys who were present there were Shah Alam, Tanveer Malik, Nazeem and Kasim (the petitioner herein).
    Regarding the phone location of the petitioner, learned SPP submits that his mobile phone from 17.02.2020 to 23.03.2020 was not in active mode, therefore, his phone location could not be established.
    In addition to that, Constables Saudan and Pawan were also present on duty at the spot on 25.2.2020, who had seen the incident and identified the petitioner (Kasim) along with other co-accused persons.
    Therefore, it was submitted that they could identify him and accordingly, their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 03.03.2020.

    Argument by Petitioner's Counsel

    The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in Sambhal, Moradabad, UP at the time of the incident and from 17.02.2020 to 23.03.2020. Thus, he was not present in Delhi on the date of the incident.

    Court's Observations

    The Court acknowledged the fact the incident took place on 25.02.2020 and statements of Constables Saudan and Pawan were recorded who were on duty at the spot on 25.02.2020 and they saw the incident and identified the petitioner being "BC" of the area along with other co-accused persons.

    Further, the Court remarked,

    "There is no explanation as to why the said police officials did not make any PCR call/DD entry to the concerned police station regarding the involvement of petitioner on 25.02.2020. The injured made his statement on 02.03.2020 wherein he named the petitioner and only thereafter, the Ct. Saudan and Ct. Pawan made their statements on 03.03.2020 stating that they were on duty at the spot on the date of the incident and had seen the incident and identified the petitioner." (emphasis supplied)

    Importantly, the Court observed that as per the charge-sheet, 11 video footages were received from different social media showing the incident or riot dated 24/25.02.2020 at the crime spot and house of accused Tahir Hussain.

    In this context, the Court said,

    "It is also not in dispute that co-accused Tahir Hussain and Liyakat were seen in the CCTV footage, however, petitioner is not seen in any of those 11 footages received from different social media." (emphasis supplied)

    Accordingly, the Court ordered that Petitioner/Kasim be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
    Notably, while observing that "the witnesses seem to be planted one", the Delhi High Court on Wednesday (07th October) granted bail to one Irshad Ahmed, an alleged associate of Tahir Hussain.
    In this matter, the Bench of Justice Suresh Kait passed this order while hearing a petition filed by the petitioner (Irshad Ahmed) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No.80/2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/436/427/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 PDPP Act, registered at Police Station Dayalpur, Delhi.

    Click Here To Download Order

    [Read Order]



    Tags
    Delhi RiotBailDelhi HCCommunalismCAANRC
    Next Story
    X
    sidekick
    x
    IP subscription is detected for  
    Please register yourself for unlimited free access.
    Redirecting to register page...