Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, while granting bail to two accused of throwing petrol bombs at police, remarked that judicial pillars must ensure an accused is not unnecessarily deprived of his personal liberty. 

Mohd Wasim @ Bablu and Mohd Jalaluddin were arrested on September 28, 2022.  An FIR was filed, accusing him of throwing petrol bombs at police, contributing to Ratan Lal's death. On February 24, 2020, a communal riot erupted in North-East Delhi during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, near Chand Bagh on Wazirabad Road. Protestors allegedly advanced to Wazirabad Main Road with weapons, intending to harm police personnel. 

Despite police warnings, they reportedly attacked officers with stones and sticks, resulting in severe injuries to Head Constable Ratan Lal, who later succumbed to his wounds. 

Advocate Deepak Kohli, representing the petitioner, argued that he was not involved in the riot on February 24, 2020, stating he only went outside to check on his brother while a crowd gathered nearby. CCTV footage showed him walking alone and unarmed near his home. He sought bail, noting that 20 of 28 accused had already been granted bail, and a key witness did not identify him among the alleged offenders. Additionally, he claimed no Test Identification Parade (TIP) had been conducted, his family needed his support due to recent personal loss, and he had no prior criminal record, having been in custody for 25 months with trial proceedings still at an early stage.

Special Public Prosecutor Ashish Dutta, representing the State, asserted that the petitioner was accurately identified through CCTV and call records as part of the riot. The prosecution alleged he attacked police with petrol bombs, causing injuries to an officer, and participated in the assembly responsible for the murder of another officer. They argued that the petitioner’s actions disrupted peace, posed a risk to witnesses and evidence, and justified the denial of bail due to the severity of the charges.

The court noted that the petitioner’s arrest was based on a statement from HC Chetrapal Singh on May 4, 2020, alleging that the petitioner and others in the mob caused serious injuries, leaving Singh bedridden. The court acknowledged that, in assessing this petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, it was essential to balance state interests with the rights of the accused, who had been in custody since September 28, 2020.

Emphasizing the principle that “bail is a rule, jail is an exception,” the court outlined that the severity of accusations alone should not be used to deny bail without corroborating evidence.

The court reviewed factors for bail, including trial progress, severity of charges, evidence tampering risks, and the accused’s conduct. The court observed that the petitioner faced charges under the PDPP Act for damaging public property with fire and explosives and was further accused under the Penal Code and Arms Act for causing firearm injuries to HC Ratan Lal. The respondent state argued that the petitioner’s alleged actions constituted anti-national activities, meriting charges under Section 149 IPC related to unlawful assembly and Section 302 IPC for murder. Citing Sherey and Ors. v. State of U.P., the court underscored that a conviction under Section 149 IPC requires proof of shared intent among assembly members.

The court observed that the petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that CCTV footage showed him unarmed and outside only to check on his brother. Moreover, the primary witness could not identify him. The court clarified that evidence review was not essential for bail assessment, focusing instead on whether continued custody was warranted.

The court acknowledged the petitioner’s role as the sole earner for his family and noted his prolonged detention since 2020. Additionally, it considered the petitioner’s plea for parity, as 20 out of 28 co-accused had already been granted bail. The chargesheet was filed, with over 150 witnesses listed, and the petitioner’s family had suffered, particularly after his infant daughter’s death.

In alignment with the Supreme Court’s view on bail, the court determined that the petitioner’s continued detention was unnecessary. Without addressing case merits, the court granted bail to the petitioner, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and one surety of the same amount, pending satisfaction of the court.

For Petitioners: Advocates Deepak Kohli, Mohd. Shariq, Mohd Anas, Amit Kharbanda, Kartik Venu, R Jude Rohit and Kratika Singhal
For Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor Ashish Dutta with Advocate Mayank
Case Title: Mohd. Wasim @ Bablu & Mohd. Jalaluddin v State (2024:DHC:8454/8455)