Delhi High Court: A petition was filed seeking grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) now Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in FIR dated 26-02-2020 registered at Police Station- Dayalpur for offences punishable under Sections 186, 353, 332, 333, 323, 109, 144, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 188, 336, 427, 307, 302, 308, 201, 120B and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (“PDPP Act”). Chandra Dhari Singh, J., granted regular bail, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to few conditions.
The FIR was registered at Police Station Dayalpur, concerning a series of offences under IPC including Sections 186, 353, 332, 333, 323, 109, 144, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 188, 336, 427, 307, 302, 308, 201, 120B, and 34, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act). These charges stemmed from the communal riots that erupted in North-East Delhi on 24-02-2020, primarily in protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA). The petitioner’s role was alleged to involve rioting and incitement to violence, particularly an attack on police personnel that tragically resulted in the death of Head Constable.
The prosecution’s case, as laid out in the FIR, alleged that a violent mob, equipped with baseball bats, iron rods, and stones, confronted police officers on Wazirabad Main Road. Despite warnings from the police, the mob attacked, leading to severe injuries for several officers, culminating in Head Constable’s fatal injuries. The petitioner was implicated in the unlawful assembly and arrested on 11-03-2020. A subsequent charge sheet was filed linking the petitioner to the riot based on his participation in the mob and the statements from eyewitnesses, along with CCTV footage purportedly placing him at the scene. Despite previous applications for bail, the petitioner’s requests were either withdrawn or dismissed, which ultimately led to the filing of this petition.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations were baseless and that he had been falsely implicated. The petitioner contended he was a property dealer with no history of violence or criminal record and had been wrongly associated with the mob due to his proximity to the area. Counsel argued that the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated, given the prolonged detention without trial. The petitioner’s counsel asserted that the ongoing detention without timely trial was unfair as other accused individuals had been granted bail and that, given the vast number of witnesses and supplementary chargesheets, the trial would likely remain unresolved for an extended period.
Conversely, the State opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner was clearly identified by several police personnel and public witnesses. The State alleged that the petitioner was seen in a recorded video leading the mob and participating actively in stone-pelting. The prosecution contended that the petitioner’s release could risk tampering with evidence, endanger witnesses, and potentially lead to a recurrence of such violent behavior. Given the seriousness and gravity of the charges, the State argued that his continued detention was warranted to uphold public order and maintain confidence in the rule of law.
The Court addressed the dual concerns of upholding individual rights while considering public interest and order. The Court observed that although “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception,” as iterated by the Supreme Court, this principle must be balanced against the context of the alleged crimes, particularly when public safety and national interest are at stake. However, the Court also acknowledged precedents that underscore the importance of a speedy trial and the dangers of indefinite detention without trial.
Ultimately, the Court weighed the severity of the allegations, the petitioner’s prolonged detention, and the improbability of an expedited trial due to the sheer number of witnesses and evidence involved. The Court concluded that while the petitioner had been implicated in grave offences, the principles of justice warranted consideration of his release on bail, especially given the delayed trial progress.
Thus, the Court held that the petitioner would be eligible for bail, subject to stringent conditions to ensure that he did not interfere with the proceedings or compromise public order, thereby balancing the petitioner’s rights with the interests of justice and public safety.
[Jalaluddin v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7563, decided on 04-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Kartik Venu, Mr. R Jude Rohit and Ms. Kratika Singhal, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Ashish Dutta, SPP with Mr Mayank, Advocate, Inst Mr. Gurmeet Singh for State
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
