Veracity of allegations can be tested during trial: Delhi High Court grants bail to four in Delhi Riots case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted bail to four persons who are facing trial in a case concerning the Delhi riots that took place in the North-East area of the national capital in February 2020 (Liyakat Ali vs State)..A single-judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said that petitioners cannot be made to languish behind bars. ."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, prima facie I am of the opinion that petitioners cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer time and the veracity of allegations leveled against them can be tested during trial," the Court said. .All four accused (petitioners) were arrested in March 2020. .As per the FIR, on February 24, 2020, a large mob present on the roof of AAP Councilor Tahir Hussain pelted stones and petrol bombs at the passers-by..It was alleged that some people from the mob broke open the shutter of the parking lot of Bharat Vatika, a wedding hall, and robbed the inmates..As per the FIR, the mob burnt one of the parked vehicle, broke the motor cycle of complainant, destroyed the food and robbed Rs. 62,000 from Rajvir Yadav who was taking care of the food preparation..A chargesheet was filed against all the petitioners for the offences under Sections under Sections 109/114/147/148/149/ 153A/323/392/395/ 427/436/ 454/505/120B/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act..[DELHI RIOTS] No CCTV evidence: Delhi High Court grants bail to 63-year old accused of stone-pelting, instigating attacks.The prosecution opposed grant of bail on the ground that the alleged incident had not taken place at the spur of the moment but it was a deep-rooted and pre-devised strategy by the main accused Tahir Hussain..It was argued that the role of petitioners in the alleged incident was vividly described by the eyewitnesses and the police officials who were present there..The prosecution inter alia added that while one of the petitioners, in his disclosure statement, has even admitted to having received his share from out of the amount looted at the wedding venue, another petitioner had accepted that he had looted the money. .The Court noted that it was not in dispute that in the FIR in question, none of the petitioners were particularly named and even the complainant had specifically stated that he could identify only a few of the rioters..The Court further observed that while the alleged incident took place on February 24, 2020, the FIR was registered on February 27, 2020. .The delay in recording of statements and absence of PCR calls by witnesses was also considered by the Court. "The testimony of eyewitnesses, namely, Pradeep Verma, Surender Singh and Rajbir Singh Yadav under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 14.03.2020 and none of them neither made any PCR call nor any DD entry was made. Similarly, the statement of another eye witness Constable Sangram was recorded on 23.04.2020 and this Court fails to understand as to why despite having good understanding of law and order, a police official who is witness to riots would neither call PCR nor will make a DD entry in this regard," the Court said. .The Court also noted that it was undisputed that the call detail record of prime accused Tahir Hussain did not match with those of petitioners and that there was no evidence such like CCTV footage, video clip or photo to connect the petitioners with the incident in question..Nothing incriminating has been recovered from their possession, the Court added. .Considering that the trial was already in progress, the Court directed that the petitioners be released on bail forthwith in this FIR case upon their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs 20,000 each, with one surety each in the like amount..[Read Order]