NEW DELHI: A Delhi court Monday granted bail to a man in three cases related to north east Delhi riots in February, saying that as per the law there should be at least five members to constitute “unlawful assembly”, which was lacking in all these matters as he was the only one chargesheeted. Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav said the investigating agency was “blowing the trumpet” that the probe of the cases were underway and remaining persons of the “unlawful assembly” have to be identified and arrested in the matters.
The court granted bail to Noor Mohd on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 20,000 with one surety each in the three cases related to rioting and vandalising shops in Khajuri Khas area.
The incidents took place on February 24 and till date besides Noor the police has not been able to identify any other member of the “so called unlawful assembly”, it said, adding that he cannot be made to incarcerate in jail for infinity just on the ground that the investigation of the cases were going on.
“It is noteworthy that in all the three cases in hand, only a single accused, that is, the applicant (Noor) has been chargesheeted. In terms of Section 141 IPC (Indian Penal Code), to constitute an ‘unlawful assembly’, there has to be at least five members,which admittedly is lacking in all the three cases in hand… The identification of applicant by police witnesses is hardly of any consequence to the prosecution,” the court said.
In its separate but similar orders in the three cases, the court said: “The investigating agency is blowing the trumpet that investigation of the cases are underway and remaining persons of the ‘unlawful assembly’ have to be identified and arrested in the matter.
“The chargesheets in the matter have already been filed. The incidents in the matter took place on February 24 and till date besides the applicant, the investigating agency has not been able to identify any other member of the so called ‘unlawful assembly’. The applicant cannot be made to incarcerate in jail for infinity just on the ground that the investigation of the cases are going on.”
It further said it also does not appeal to the senses that initially the three complainants, which became the basis for registration of FIRs in the cases, did not specifically name Noor Mohd, but later on after about 40 days of the incidents, all of them identified him in Police Station Khajuri Khas.
“It is a matter of record that applicant (Noor) has not been named by any of the complainants in their respective statements, which became the basis for registration of FIR(s) in the three matters. It also does not appeal to the senses that initially all the three complainants did not specifically name the applicant in their respective complaints, but later on after about 40 days of the incident, all of them identified the applicant in PS Khajuri Khas,” the court said.
It said there was no electronic evidence available against Noor, either in the form of any CCTV footage or his call data record location, which could prima facie show his presence at the scene of crime on the date of incident.
It directed him not to tamper with evidence and to install “Aarogya Setu” app on his mobile phone.
The court, however, clarified that anything stated in the order should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the final merits of the cases, as they were at “pre- cognizance/pre- committal stage”.
It had earlier granted him bail in three other cases related to rioting in Khajuri Khas area.
During the hearing, advocate Akhtar Shamim, appearing for Noor, said that he has been falsely implicated in the cases and there was no electronic evidence against him.
Special Public Prosecutor Manoj Choudhary, appearing for the police, opposed the bail applications saying 153 cases were registered and were being investigated in the area and Noor’s role was under investigation from the point of view of an individual as well as collectively, being part of the conspiracy.
The cases were registered on the complaints of Giyanender Kumar Kochar, Hanif and Sanjay Kumar Goyal.
Kochar had alleged in his complaint that on February 24, his shop was vandalised by the riotous mob due to which he suffered a loss of about Rs 12 lakh. Hanif alleged that his tailor shop was vandalised by the rioters due to which he suffered a loss of about Rs 5 lakhs and Goyal alleged in his complaint that the mob had set fire to his medical shop.
Communal clashes had broken out in north east Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and around 200 injured.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here