The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted bail to two of the three men accused in the murder of 85-year-old Akbari Begum during the Delhi riots of February 2020 [Ravi Kumar v State]..Justice Subramonium Prasad said that it cannot assume that every member of an unlawful assembly would be guilty of murder and the Supreme Court has consistently held that in order to convict an accused with the aid of Section 149, a clear finding needs to be given by the Court regarding the nature of the unlawful common object.If this finding is absent, then the mere fact that the accused was armed will not be sufficient to prove the common object, the Court said.“When there is a crowd involved, at the juncture of grant or denial of bail, the Court must hesitate before arriving at the conclusion that every member of the unlawful assembly inhabits a common intention to accomplish the unlawful common object. It cannot be assumed that every member of the unlawful assembly could be found guilty of the offence of Section 302 of the IPC and, therefore, every decision on an application of bail must be based on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances in the matter therein,” the Court held..While accused Ravi Kumar and Arun Kumar were released on bail, Vishal Singh’s application has been denied.All of them were charged with murder, unlawful assembly and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) among several other offences.It was alleged that they were part of a mob of around 100 people that gathered in Bhajanpura area chanting slogans of ‘Jai Shree Ram’. The crowd then entered the house where Akbari Begum lived, opening the locks and setting it on fire. The family members saved their lives by rushing to the top floor. However, Begum could not reach the roof top because of her age and died of asphyxiation.It was also alleged that the mob plundered the house and looted ₹8 lakh along with gold and silver jewellery and several valuable items..Justice Prasad noted that the video footage did not show Ravi as actively taking part in the activity of the mob and he looked like a curious onlooker therefore the material against him does not justify continued incarceration.In case of Arun Kumar, the Court said that the atmosphere where the incident took place was charged and he was a resident of the locality therefore it cannot be said with certainty that his presence on the spot with lathi was enough to conclude that he was an active member of the unlawful assembly..However, in Vishal Singh’s case, Justice Prasad said that material on record clearly revealed that he was an active member of the mob that set Akbari Begum’s house on fire. The judge noted that there was clinching evidence against him and he was dragging a scooty at the scene of the crime where he is clearly identified.“This Court is of the opinion that the footage of the Petitioner at the Scene of Crime is quite egregious, and is therefore sufficient to keep the Petitioner in custody. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not satisfy the ingredients to claim bail on ground of parity with the other co-accused of the Petitioner who have been enlarged on bail… unlike the Petitioner herein, none of those co-accused, who have been granted bail were caught in an overt act which indicated their active participation in perpetrating the offences mentioned in FIR No. 70/2020,” the Court said. .Last month, the Delhi High Court had granted bail to six men accused of being part of a mob that murdered 20-year-old Dilbar Negi during the riots on similar ground. The Court had said that there cannot be an umbrella assumption that every member of an unlawful assembly has a common object. .While advocate Sanjiv Dagar, Yogesh Verma, Ashwin Vaish and Pankaj Yadav appeared for the accused, the state was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, along with advocate Ayodhya Prasad.Advocates Mehmood Pracha, Sanawar Choudhary and Jatin Bhatt appeared for the complainants..[Read Judgments]
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted bail to two of the three men accused in the murder of 85-year-old Akbari Begum during the Delhi riots of February 2020 [Ravi Kumar v State]..Justice Subramonium Prasad said that it cannot assume that every member of an unlawful assembly would be guilty of murder and the Supreme Court has consistently held that in order to convict an accused with the aid of Section 149, a clear finding needs to be given by the Court regarding the nature of the unlawful common object.If this finding is absent, then the mere fact that the accused was armed will not be sufficient to prove the common object, the Court said.“When there is a crowd involved, at the juncture of grant or denial of bail, the Court must hesitate before arriving at the conclusion that every member of the unlawful assembly inhabits a common intention to accomplish the unlawful common object. It cannot be assumed that every member of the unlawful assembly could be found guilty of the offence of Section 302 of the IPC and, therefore, every decision on an application of bail must be based on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances in the matter therein,” the Court held..While accused Ravi Kumar and Arun Kumar were released on bail, Vishal Singh’s application has been denied.All of them were charged with murder, unlawful assembly and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) among several other offences.It was alleged that they were part of a mob of around 100 people that gathered in Bhajanpura area chanting slogans of ‘Jai Shree Ram’. The crowd then entered the house where Akbari Begum lived, opening the locks and setting it on fire. The family members saved their lives by rushing to the top floor. However, Begum could not reach the roof top because of her age and died of asphyxiation.It was also alleged that the mob plundered the house and looted ₹8 lakh along with gold and silver jewellery and several valuable items..Justice Prasad noted that the video footage did not show Ravi as actively taking part in the activity of the mob and he looked like a curious onlooker therefore the material against him does not justify continued incarceration.In case of Arun Kumar, the Court said that the atmosphere where the incident took place was charged and he was a resident of the locality therefore it cannot be said with certainty that his presence on the spot with lathi was enough to conclude that he was an active member of the unlawful assembly..However, in Vishal Singh’s case, Justice Prasad said that material on record clearly revealed that he was an active member of the mob that set Akbari Begum’s house on fire. The judge noted that there was clinching evidence against him and he was dragging a scooty at the scene of the crime where he is clearly identified.“This Court is of the opinion that the footage of the Petitioner at the Scene of Crime is quite egregious, and is therefore sufficient to keep the Petitioner in custody. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not satisfy the ingredients to claim bail on ground of parity with the other co-accused of the Petitioner who have been enlarged on bail… unlike the Petitioner herein, none of those co-accused, who have been granted bail were caught in an overt act which indicated their active participation in perpetrating the offences mentioned in FIR No. 70/2020,” the Court said. .Last month, the Delhi High Court had granted bail to six men accused of being part of a mob that murdered 20-year-old Dilbar Negi during the riots on similar ground. The Court had said that there cannot be an umbrella assumption that every member of an unlawful assembly has a common object. .While advocate Sanjiv Dagar, Yogesh Verma, Ashwin Vaish and Pankaj Yadav appeared for the accused, the state was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, along with advocate Ayodhya Prasad.Advocates Mehmood Pracha, Sanawar Choudhary and Jatin Bhatt appeared for the complainants..[Read Judgments]
