[Delhi Riots] Delhi High Court grants bail to 2, rejects bail to 2 others

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted bail to two people and rejected bail for two others in a rioting and murder case related to the Delhi Riots of 2020 [State v. Shahnawaz, etc]..Justice Subramonium Prasad allowed bail to Shanawaz and Mohd Ayyub while dismissing the pleas of Sadiq and Irshad Ali..For Shahnawz, it was opined that in the present case when there was 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.“There cannot be an umbrella assumption of guilt on behalf of every accused by the Court, and every decision must be taken based on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances in the matter therein. This principle, therefore, gains utmost importance when the Court considers the question of grant or denial of bail,” it stated.While dealing with Ayyub’s bail plea the Court noted merely being one of the organisers of the protest and communicating with others who participated in the protest was not sufficient to justify the contention that he was involved in the pre-planning of the alleged incident.“This Court has already opined that the right to protest and express dissent is a right which occupies a fundamental stature in a democratic polity, and therefore, the fact that the Petitioner was part of the protest is not a sufficient ground to refuse bail to him,” it was held.One of two who were refused bail, Sadiq, was stated to have been spotted on multiple CCTV footage, carrying a danda/stick with co-accused Imran Ansari.Calling it the “clinching” piece of evidence that tilted the Court to prolong the incarceration of the petitioner was his presence in the “Vishal Chaudhary” video where he was clearly identified at the scene of crime, holding a stick in one hand and pelting stones with the other at the officials in uniform who were present around him, and were “heavily and hopelessly” outnumbered.“This Court is of the opinion that the Vishal Chaudhary video reveals that the Petitioner is not merely a curious onlooker. The fact that he actively participated and pelted stones at the Police Officials at the scene of crime justifies the invocation of Section 149 IPC read with Section 302 IPC in the instant case,” the Court observed.The order added, “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.”At the time of deciding Irshad’s bail plea, the Court referred to the his identification in the multiple CCTV footage, carrying a danda/stick and provoking a crowd.“This Court has perused the video in slow motion and is of the opinion that the petitioner is visible and his presence at the scene of crime cannot be disputed. Furthermore, the petitioner does not satisfy the ingredients to claim bail on ground of parity,” it was stated..On September 3, the Court had granted bail to five accused persons while holding that the right to protest and express dissent is a right that occupies a fundamental stature in a democratic polity.Therefore, the sole act of protesting should not be employed as a weapon to justify the incarceration of those who are exercising this right, the order stated.“It is the Constitutional duty of the Court to ensure that there is no arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in the face of excess of State power,” Justice Prasad had said..The Court also noted that Section 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) specifically read with Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could not be applied on the basis of “vague evidence and general allegations.”“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,” the order observed.It also stated that there couldn’t be an umbrella assumption of guilt on behalf of every accused by the Court, and every decision must be taken on careful consideration of the facts and circumstances.“This principle, therefore, gains utmost importance when the Court considers the question of grant or denial of bail,” it added.The Court also delved into the individual cases of the five accused in the case, which pertained to the alleged murder of head constable Rattan Lal during the violence.Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, Advocates Bilal Anwar Khan, Anshu Kapoor, Aman Khullar, Aadya Mishra and Sommya Chaturvedi represented Ayyub. Advocate Dinesh Tiwari appeared for Shahnawaz and Sadiq whereas Advocates Salim Malik, Nasir Ali, Abdul Kadir and Shavana represented Irshad.For State - Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad and Advocates Anshuman Raghuvanshi and Ayodhya Prasad..[Delhi Riots] Right to protest, express dissent has fundamental stature in a democracy: Delhi High Court while granting bail to 5 accused.[Read Orders]