Insisting that the accused cannot be sent to jail “for an indefinite period”, the Delhi High Court on Monday granted bail to a man arrested in 2022 for allegedly killing an officer during the 2020 violence in Northeast Delhi.
“… it is the duty of the judiciary of this country that the accused is not deprived of his liberty unnecessarily as stipulated under Article 21… Undoubtedly, bail is a law and prison is different, therefore, it is important to say that if the court finds sufficient reasons to extend the accused on bail, it should exercise its discretion and support the aims of justice in man. “The accused is serving time in prison while ensuring that the procedural law is applied correctly as proposed in the statute… (the accused) cannot be kept in prison indefinitely,” said the court of Judge Chandra Dhari Singh while releasing the court. The suspect, Mohd Wasim known as Bablu, 35, who is in custody more than 25 months.
Asking for bail, Wasim relied on the CCTV footage and revealed that he was not part of these thugs and he was leaving his house to check on his brother as it is said that a crowd had gathered in the area, near where he lives. He was placed in court as a suspect because of the police officer’s statement, he added.
Wasim also cited “equity reasons”, pointing out that 20 of the 28 suspects in the case were already out on bail.
Riots broke out on February 24, 2020, on a 25-metre road near Chand Bagh on Wazirabad Road. The FIR alleged that “angry protesters”, with the intention of killing the policemen on duty, started pelting stones at the policemen. After the attack, Constable Ratan Lal sustained injuries and later died. The FIR alleged that Wasim attacked the police by throwing petrol bombs, which led to Lal’s death.
However, the HC relied on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court, which observed that the mere existence of a person would not be sufficient to prove that the accused acted with the same intent to cause public violence unless supported by concrete evidence. . Justice Singh ruled that “the said provision is essential”.