Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A Delhi Court on Monday granted bail to an alleged member of the “Kattar Hindu Ekta WhatsApp group”, who has been named as an accused in a murder case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

Court was hearing the bail plea of one Lokesh Solanki, against whom a case under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including those related to murder (Section 302) and rioting (Section 149) had been registered at Gokalpuri police station.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Court said that there was merely one piece of circumstantial evidence against him.

The court granted bail to Lokesh Solanki@ Rajput on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000 with one surety of like amount.  

"Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, the bail application is allowed and applicant Lokesh Solanki is admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond and a surety bond of Rs 5,000 each with one surety of a like amount," the judge ordered.

The ASJ opined that the credibility of the circumstantial evidence against the accused would be assessed at the final stage of the trial.

The name of the WhatsApp group surfaced in a supplementary chargesheet filed by the Delhi Police for an alleged killing during the 2020 Delhi riots. According to the chargesheet, the “Kattar Hindu Ekta” group was created on WhatsApp on February 25, 2020. Its alleged aim was to “exact revenge for the troubles faced by Hindus” and promote enmity between different groups on the ground of religion.

On the aspect of the identity of the accused persons, the court said that the “eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution's case” in an unequivocal manner.

“The question is that whether the alleged messages from the mobile phone of the applicant in the above mentioned WhatsApp Group should be ground to refuse bail to the applicant, especially when alleged eyewitnesses did not support prosecution to identify the applicant”, the ASJ said.

The judge said that admittedly the WhatsApp chats placed on the record were obtained from the mobile phone of witnesses namely Shivam Bhardwaj and Mohit. “Such chats were not found in the mobile phone of applicant as allegedly he had deleted this account. Aforesaid two witnesses did not support the prosecution in respect of being aware of aforesaid chats”, the court noted.

"Thus, this would be one piece of circumstantial evidence and sufficiency as well as the credibility of the same will be the subject matter of appreciation at the final stage of the case. In my opinion, it shall not be fair to refuse bail only on the ground of the above-mentioned piece of circumstantial evidence," Court stated in its order.

Case Title: State v. Lokesh Solanki & Ors.