While refusing bail to an accused in the murder case of head constable Rattan Lal during the Delhi Riots of 2020, the Delhi High Court said that the “riots evidently did not take place in the spur of the moment” [Mohd Ibrahim v. State]..Justice Subramonium Prasad also said that the conduct of the protestors seen in the video footage placed on record by the prosecution visibly portrayed that it was a “calculated attempt to dislocate the functioning of the Government,” as well as to disrupt the normal life of the people in the city.“The systematic disconnection and destruction of the CCTV cameras also confirms the existence of a pre-planned and pre-meditated conspiracy to disturb law and order in the city. This is also evident from the fact that innumerable rioters ruthlessly descended with sticks, dandas, bats etc. upon a hopelessly outnumbered cohort of police officials,” the order highlighted.Justice Prasad took note of the same while dismissing the bail application of one Mohd Ibrahim..The Court also underscored that though it had previously opined on the importance of personal liberty in a democratic polity, individual liberty can't be misused in a manner that threatens the very fabric of civilised society by attempting to destabilise it and cause hurt to other persons..While granting bail to another man, Mohd Saleem Khan, the Court observed that he had spent 17 months behind bars since his arrest."Bail jurisprudence attempts to bridge the gap between the personal liberty of an accused and ensuring social security remains intact. It is the intricate balance between the securing the personal liberty of an individual and ensuring that this liberty does not lead to an eventual disturbance of public order," it underscored..[Delhi Riots] Delhi High Court refuses bail to one accused, grants bail to another in Rattan Lal murder case.[Read Order]
While refusing bail to an accused in the murder case of head constable Rattan Lal during the Delhi Riots of 2020, the Delhi High Court said that the “riots evidently did not take place in the spur of the moment” [Mohd Ibrahim v. State]..Justice Subramonium Prasad also said that the conduct of the protestors seen in the video footage placed on record by the prosecution visibly portrayed that it was a “calculated attempt to dislocate the functioning of the Government,” as well as to disrupt the normal life of the people in the city.“The systematic disconnection and destruction of the CCTV cameras also confirms the existence of a pre-planned and pre-meditated conspiracy to disturb law and order in the city. This is also evident from the fact that innumerable rioters ruthlessly descended with sticks, dandas, bats etc. upon a hopelessly outnumbered cohort of police officials,” the order highlighted.Justice Prasad took note of the same while dismissing the bail application of one Mohd Ibrahim..The Court also underscored that though it had previously opined on the importance of personal liberty in a democratic polity, individual liberty can't be misused in a manner that threatens the very fabric of civilised society by attempting to destabilise it and cause hurt to other persons..While granting bail to another man, Mohd Saleem Khan, the Court observed that he had spent 17 months behind bars since his arrest."Bail jurisprudence attempts to bridge the gap between the personal liberty of an accused and ensuring social security remains intact. It is the intricate balance between the securing the personal liberty of an individual and ensuring that this liberty does not lead to an eventual disturbance of public order," it underscored..[Delhi Riots] Delhi High Court refuses bail to one accused, grants bail to another in Rattan Lal murder case.[Read Order]