NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to a man, accused of taking part in the communal violence that took place in northeast Delhi in February, saying the investigation in the matter is at a crucial stage and the identity of others involved in it is yet to be ascertained.
Justice Mukta Gupta, who conducted the hearing through video-conferencing, dismissed the bail plea of Shadab Alam, saying the probe is going on and the court does not find any ground to grant the relief to him.
Regarding section 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) invoked in the FIR, the court noted that "the investigation is at a crucial stage as the SHO of Dayal Pur Police Station in northeast Delhi has stated that the video footage has been preserved and is yet to be examined".
"Since the investigation is going on and the identity of the persons present at the spot is required to be ascertained by scientific evidence and even if it is found that the petitioner (Alam) was part of the unlawful assembly even though he may not have individually torched any vehicle or shop, he would be liable for the offences. At this stage, this court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner," the judge said.
The accused sought bail in the case for offences punishable under various sections of the IPC relating to rioting and unlawful assembly and provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act.
According to the prosecution, Alam, along with eight others, was arrested when information was received that people who took part in rioting on the intervening night of February 23-24 were present at Sherpur Chowk, Karawal Nagar Road and planning to trigger another riot.
The nine accused were arrested on February 28.
Police claimed that Alam was part of an unlawful assembly that had torched vehicles and shops.
The accused's counsel contended that the police wrongly booked him for offences under the PDPP Act as according to the FIR, the vehicles allegedly burnt were not government property.
To this, the court said, "No doubt, as stated by the counsel for the petitioner, no offence under section 3 of the PDPP Act is made out for the reason that all the properties which have been alleged to be torched were not government property...."
The bail plea was opposed by the police, saying by burning shops in the area, the petitioner and the co-accused were involved in an offence under section 436 of the IPC, which is punishable with up to 10 years of imprisonment, and since the investigation is still going on, no bail should be granted to him at this stage.