Delhi-HC-delhi-violence

Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail plea of one person, who was arrested in connection with the violence that took place in north-east Delhi in February this year.

Justice Mukta Gupta, hearing the matter through video conferencing, dismissed the bail plea of Shadab Alam observing that investigation is at a crucial stage after Dayal Pur SHO apprised the court that the video footage has been preserved and is yet to be examined.

"Since the investigation is going on and the persons who were present at the spot are required to be ascertained by scientific evidence and even if found that the petitioner is part of the unlawful assembly even though he may not have individually torched any vehicle or the shops he would be liable for the offenses, at this stage this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner (Alam)," the court said.

 

Alam was seeking bail in a case registered at Dayalpur police station for offenses punishable under various charges dealing with rioting and unlawful assembly of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act).

According to police, Alam was part of unlawful assembly which torched vehicles and shops.

However, Alam's counsel said that Section 3 of the PDPP Act has been wrongly invoked for the reason even as per the FIR and the recoveries made, the scooty, motorbikes, and the car allegedly burnt were not "public property" in terms of Section 2(b) of the PDPP Act as the same do not belong to the Government or any other authority controlled by the government.

The defence counsel also said that in any case, there is no witness or no CCTV footage showing that the Alam was the one who set on fire the vehicles or the shops.

Opposing the bail, the police countered that even if the motorcycles or car do not fall in a dwelling unit, by burning shops in the area, the petitioner and co-accused have been found to be involved in an offence under Section 436 IPC (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy the house, etc) which is punishable up to ten years of imprisonment and since the investigation is still going on, no bail be granted to the petitioner at this stage.

During the course of arguments, the court also noted a mystery surrounding the arrest of the petitioner and co-accused which was further fortified by the nature of injuries received by the petitioner Alam as would be investigated in the course of events.