More than a month after they were arrested for allegedly triggering violence during a demolition drive at New Delhi’s Turkman Gate area, a sessions court on Tuesday granted bail to 12 accused in the case as it pulled up the Delhi Police over lack of evidence. No specific footage was brought on record by the police, underlined the court, to “clearly and unmistakably” identify the accused persons.
“It has been submitted by the prosecution that the incident was captured through drone surveillance and other video recordings. However, despite detailed arguments in that regard, no specific footage was played before this court during the course of hearing to prima facie demonstrate clear and unmistakable identification of any of the present applicants as actively participating in stone pelting or committing any specific overt act,” said Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Bhupinder Singh of Tis Hazari Court in his order on Tuesday.
“…the absence of demonstrative identification at this stage assumes relevance for the limited purpose of assessing the necessity of further incarceration, particularly where identity and individual role are in dispute,” he added. A total of 20 people were arrested in the case and eight did not move the court for bail.
On January 6, a fleet of 30 bulldozers rolled in at 11 pm at the spot, and the demolition began at 12.10 am. As per the police, stones pelting allegedly began at 12.40 am, and after about 10 minutes, officers responded with teargas.
The demolition came hours after the Delhi High Court declined a plea for an interim stay on the proposed action. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) deployed bulldozers to raze encroachments next to a mosque.
Violence erupted about half an hour after bulldozers started razing the structures. Some 30-35 people who had gathered there raised slogans and threw stones, as per the police, and various police personnel had allegedly been injured.
“So far as the offence u/s109(1) BNS is concerned, though the provision carries serious consequences, the medical material presently available indicates that none of the injuries attributed to the police personnel have been stated to be grievous in nature. While any assault upon public servants performing official duty is unquestionably serious, the record at this stage does not indicate grievous hurt,” said ASJ Singh in his order.
Story continues below this ad
The accused had argued that they were not clearly visible in CCTV footage and that their faces were illegible. They claimed that there was no CCTV footage or photograph confirming their active participation in the clash.
They had also argued that their residence was close to the scene of crime and they had gone out either to check on a family member or to see what the noise was about, and they did not join the mob which was pelting stones.
“…keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in particular their respective ages, clean antecedents, the period of incarceration and non-requirement for the purpose of investigations, I find merits in the bail applications under consideration,” Judge Singh said.
On the other hand, the police had stated that the accused were “clearly visible” in video recordings of the incident and that their CDRs corroborated their presence at the spot of the incident.
Story continues below this ad
The main evidence that the police had relied upon is video footage of the incident, call detail records (CDRs) of the accused, chats recovered from their seized mobile phones, and statements of eyewitnesses (police officers at the spot).
It was also alleged by the police that videos of the alleged stone pelting were also circulated by the accused.
“It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that certain video clips and messages relating to the incident were circulated on social media platforms…It is not the prosecution case that the applicants were the originators, creators, or authors of the said content, nor that they generated or fabricated the material. The allegation, at its highest, is of forwarding content already in circulation,” the court said.
During the course of investigation, Sections 49 (abetment), 109(1) (attempt to murder) and 190 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the BNS have been added in the case. Attempt to murder has a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life and is triable by a Sessions Court.
Story continues below this ad
On December 22 last year, the MCD had said that any structure outside the 0.195-acre area was an encroachment and misuse of public land. In its plea, the mosque committee told the Delhi High Court that it had no objection to the removal of encroachments, but sought protection for a graveyard adjoining the mosque, which lies beyond the 0.195-acre area.
