ba:r & bench (,ench.com)...rajeev nagar delhi age 60 yrs hc munavar verified 4. irfanuddin s/o...
TRANSCRIPT
IN THE COURT OF DR. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 250/2019PS – Darya GanjU/S – 147/148/149/436/427/323/186/353/332/120B/34 IPC & Sec. 3/4
of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984.
1. Bail Application No. 2878/2019State vs. Zaid Ali
2. Bail Application No. 2879/2019State vs. Rehan Khan
3. Bail Application No. 2873/2019State vs. Amir
4. Bail Application No. 2875/2019State vs. Mohd. Danish
5. Bail Application No. 2877/2019State vs. Mohd. Asfaq
6. Bail Application No. 2874/2019State vs. Haider Ali
7. Bail Application No. 2876/2019State vs. Danish Malik
8. Bail Application No. 2872/2019State vs. Mohd. Athar
9. Bail Application No. 2866/2019State vs. Sabeel Ahmed
10. Bail Application No. 2854/2019State vs. Abbas Ahmed
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 1 of 13
Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
11. Bail Application No. 2851/2019State vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari
12. Bail Application No. 2850/2019State vs. Furqaan
13. Bail Application No. 2849/2019State vs. Irfanuddin
14. Bail Application No. 2853/2019State vs. Atif
15. Bail Application No. 2852/2019State vs. Mohd. Shamsher
09.01.2020
All the above bail applications are taken up together
being arising out of the same FIR.
Present: Sh. Pankaj Bhatia Ld. Addl. PP for the State with IO SI
Santosh Kumar.
Ms. Rebecca John, Ld. Senior Advocate with Ms. Tara
Narula and Sh. Zahid Ali Advocates for all the
applicants/ accused.
All the bail applications have been transferred to this court
pursuant to the orders of the Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQs), Delhi
dated 07.01.2020.
These applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been
filed for grant of bail to the applicants / accused namely Zaid Ali,
Rehan Khan, Amir, Mohd. Danish, Mohd. Asfaq, Haider Ali, Danish
Malik, Mohd. Athar, Sabeel Ahmed, Abbas Ahmed, Mohd. Ali
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 2 of 13
Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
Ansari, Furqaan, Irfanuddin, Atif and Mohd. Shamsher. It is
submitted that the applicants/ accused are innocent and have been falsely
arraigned in the present FIR and that there are no allegations against any
specific individual of causing deterrence to any public servant in
carrying out his official duty. It is also submitted that there is nothing on
record to establish any assault on any police official nor any destruction
of public property alleged so as to attract the provisions of PDPP Act. It
is further submitted that there is no reasonable basis on which the police
have identified the accused persons who have been arrested as those
responsible for the alleged act of setting the said vehicle on fire. It is
also submitted that the alleged incident had taken place on the evening of
20.12.2019 and in the cover of darkness it is highly unlikely for any
particular individual to be clearly visible and identifiable and the police
has in an arbitrary manner arrested the applicants/ accused. It is further
submitted that it is clearly visible from thousands of videos which were
being made at the said protest that it was a peaceful protest and there was
no violence from the end of any of the protesters. It is also submitted that
a large number of persons were present in the area at the time when the
police loaded them into buses due to the fact it was tine for evening
prayers and being a Holiday, persons who had merely come to offer
Namaz and eat around Jama Masjid area with their families or friends
were picked up by the police.
A detail reply has been filed by the Investigating Officer.
As per the allegations on 20.12.2019 there was a protest by the public at
large in view of the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National
Register of Citizens. Some of the protesters were present in the area of
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 3 of 13
Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
Walled City near Jama Masjid and police personnel in large numbers
were deployed in the area to maintain law and order and one Sh.
Chandershekhar @ Ravan who is the President of Bhim Army party was
also present at the spot and made a speech that was likely to incite
violence. As per the allegations pursuant to this speech thousands of
protesters started proceeding towards Jama Masjid area from the side of
Delhi Gate. At about 6:00 PM the crowd congregated near Delhi Gate
and reached outside the office of DCP, Central District and also outside
Police Station Daryaganj and the protesters were shouting slogans
against the central government and also planning to proceed to Jantar
Mantar. Further, as per the allegations that the protesters turned violent
and started throwing stones at the police personnel who were
deployed at the spot on which police have used a water cannon in order
to disperse the crowd but the group of persons turned violent and all of a
sudden burnt the car bearing No. DL5CQ3038. It has been alleged
that several persons were detained who were a part of the unruly mob
that set the above stated vehicle on fire and on the basis of these
allegations, the applicant/ accused were arrested by the police.
As per the report of the Investigating Officer, the
investigations have now been transferred to the Special Investigation
UnitI, Crime Branch, Delhi and during investigations, the recovered
CCTV Footage of dated 20.12.2019, which was of poor quality, was
examined and since the incident took place in late evening and therefore
it is hard to identify the faces. It is reported that the media houses (both
print and electronic) have been issued notices to provide the videos/
photographs of the spots covered by them which are still awaited and the
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 4 of 13
Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
CCTV cameras installed in the vicinity/ adjoining areas, where the
alleged offences took place are being identified and the CCTV footage is
being taken and scrutinized.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State has opposed the bail applications
of the applicants/ accused on the ground that the allegations in the
present case are serious and sensitive in nature involving commission of
offence against the Constitutional system of the Country. It is further
submitted that the investigations of the present case is at the initial stage
and all the applicants / accused have been arrested from the crime scene
when they were verymuch in action in pursuance of a well planned
conspiracy. Ld. Addl. PP for the State had further argued that during
investigations it was emerged that a call was given for procession against
CAA and NRC and a large gathering assembled at Jama Masjid for the
Driday Namaz which concluded at around 1:30 PM and a sizable number
of people left Jama Masjid while other remained present there. The
remaining crowd continued to protest / shout slogans and they were
joined by some other persons who reached there from Tans Yamuna area
(including some of the accused persons) and at about 5:30 PM they
started to proceed towards New Delhi and they were stopped at Delhi
Gate near DCP Office on which they became violent. It is pointed out
that as many as Seventeen police personnel were injured in discharge of
their official duty and two media personnel also received injuries. It is
further submitted that the accused persons not only caused damages to
private property but also damaged the public property at large. It is also
submitted that the Call Detail Records of the accused persons are being
obtained and linked with the positions on the date of incident. Ld. Addl.
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 5 of 13
Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
PP for the State has also pointed out that the applicant namely Danish
Malik is involved in another case bearing FIR No. 337/2016, PS Gokul
Puri, U/s. 399/402/34 IPC 7 25 of Arms Act and the applicant/ accused
Amir is also involved in another case bearing FIR No. 119/2009, PS
GTB Enclave, U/s. 326/307/34 IPC. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has
placed on record the list of accused who have been duly identified by
police personnel detailed as under:
Sr.No.
Name and Address of the accused Identified by Whether addressverified or not
1. Danish Malik S/o Zahir Malik R/o495 Gali No5 Old Mustafabad Delhi.Age 24 Yrs.
Ct. Namichand Verified
2. Sabeel Ahmed S/o Waseem AhmedR/o 1063 Gali No10 4th Pusta GarhiMandu Jafrabad Delhi Age 24 Yrs.
Ct. Anil Verified
3. Mohd Asfak S/o Ali Baks R/o GaliNo11 D Block Shri Ram ColonyRajeev Nagar Delhi Age 60 Yrs
HC Munavar Verified
4. Irfanuddin S/o Vakiluddin R/o C991Gali No17 Rajeev Nagar Shri RamNagar Delhi Age 24 Yrs.
Ct. Inderjeet Verified
5. Amir S/o Gappu R/o HNo42 JantaColony Babarpur Shahdara Delhi. Age25 Yrs.
Ct. Deepak Giri Verified
6. Mohd Athar S/o Mohd. Sabir R/o C59 Gali No4 Shri Ram Colony RajeevNagar Delhi Age 22 Yrs.
Ct. Deepak Giri Verified
7. Atif S/o Jaliluddin R/o Gali No8 NearKhadde wali Masjid New Usman PurDelhi. Age 22 Yrs.
HC Chhagan Lal Verified
8. Rehan Khan S/o Afroj Khan R/o E439/f49 Idgah Road Janta ColonyWelcome Seelampur Delhi. Age24yrs.
ASI Amrish Verified
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 6 of 13
Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
9. Haider Ali S/o Kale Khan R/o 143Gali no4 Vijay Park Maujpur Delhi.Age22 yrs.
HC Kishan Lal Verified
10. Furkan S/o Mohd Shamim R/o 1105Gali No18/4 E2 Block Nehru ViharMustafabad Delhi. Age23 Yrs.
HC Kishan Lal Verified
11. Mohd Zaid S/o Mohd Islam R/o HNoA82 Gali No8 Shastri Park Delhi.Age24 yrs.
HC Sriram Verified
12. Mohd Shamsher Shah S/o MohdDukhi Shah R/o Gali No8 3rd PustaNew Usman Pur Delhi. ParmanantAdd Vill. Asuwa Panchyat Distt.Darbhanga Bihar Age 23 yrs.
HC Javed Verified
13. Abbas Ahmed S/o Altaf Ahmed R/oG267 Rehmat Ali Road Jaipal ChowkShahid nagar Gaziabad UP Age 32 yrs.
ASI Ravinder Verified
14. Danish S/o Kasim R/o B881 GaliNo13/4 Subhash Mohalla Bhajan PuraDelhi. Age22 Yrs.
ASI Jaswant Verified
15. Mohd Ali S/o Mohd Mahu Alam R/oGali No1 Bharat Dairy Chand BaghBhajanpura Delhi. Age25 Yrs.
Ct. Girdhari Lal Verified
I have considered the rival contentions. The argument that
the protest was completely peaceful does not primafacie appear to be
believable particularly in the light of the damage caused to the vehicle
and injuries caused not only to the police personnel on duty but also to
media persons covering the protest (as reflected in the MLCs). We, the
people of India, have given to ourselves the Constitution and agreed to
disagree. In our democratic setup we have a Fundamental Right to
Peaceful Protest guaranteed by the Constitution, which right cannot be
curtailed by the State. However, at the same time, our constitution
strikes a fine balance between the Rights and Duties. While exercising
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 7 of 13
Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
our right of peaceful protest, it is our duty to ensure that no
corresponding right of another is violated. Violence or destruction of
property is totally unacceptable. There has to be zero tolerance for any
kind of violence or damage to property whether private or public.
Lawlessness cannot be encouraged.
Now coming to the present case, I may observe that Firstly,
the addresses of all the applicants/ accused have been verified, the report
of which has been placed on record. Secondly, the CCTV footage upon
which Investigating agency is placing their reliance is reported to be of a
poor quality which admittedly does not reflect any of the accused
persons. Thirdly, I am informed I am informed by the IO that another
CCTV is installed at the office of the DCP (Central) Darya Ganj and
repeated requests have been made to the office of DCP (Central) and
also a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been given for providing the
CCTV footage of the incident but till date no such footage has been
provided. Fourthly, in so far as the aspect of damage to property is
concerned, the case put forth is that a private car was damaged. The
Investigating Officer has informed that till date no assessment of damage
whatsoever has been made. Fifthly, I note that none of the applicants/
accused have any antecedents except for the applicant/ accused Danish
and Amir who are involved in one case each. In so far as the applicant/
accused Amir is concerned, I am informed that he was a juvenile in the
year 2009 and as on date no case is pending against him but the
Investigating Officer is unable to confirm the status of the cases pending
against the applicants/ accused Danish Malik and Amir. Sixthly, it is
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 8 of 13
Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
submitted that seventeen police personnel and two media persons had
sustained injuries which were treated at LNJP Hospital. Despite the fact
that the MLCs were prepared on 20.12.2019, till date no opinion has
been obtained on the same by the Investigating Agency. In this regard, it
has become necessary for me to observe that repeated adjournments
were given for the said purpose, on 08.01.2020 specific directions were
also issued to the IO to obtained the opinion on the MLC but the
Investigating Officer has instead of getting the opinion, placed on record
the Circular of the GNCT of Delhi dated 31.12.2019 bearing F.No.
60/MB/P&R/2017/H&FW/CD#112463968/oshrnr/458459 issued by
the Health and Family Welfare Department, 9th Level, AWing, Delhi
Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi wherein all the hospitals have been
directed to ensure that the result of the MLC is given by the examining
doctor within 15 days of the receipt of the same. On the face of it, the
said circular relates to MLCs in Accident cases where claims have to be
filed in the MACT Court as directed by the Delhi High Court in the case
of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh and I fail to understand its
relevant in the present case. When this Court inquired from the
Investigating Officer as to whether any refusal by the Incharge MRD
Section has been given in writing or if he has approached the Medical
Superintendent concerned, the IO SI Santosh Kumar submits that he
only went to the Incharge MRD Section. I am not satisfied by the
manner in which the Investigating Officer SI Santosh Kumar has tried to
skirt the issue and his failure to place on record the opinion on the MLCs
cannot be a ploy to further curtail the liberties of the applicants/ accused
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 9 of 13
Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
who are in Judicial Custody for the last more than 20 days. Sixthly, I
may note that the provisions invoked in the present case are, by and
large, bailable and triable by Magistrate which are detailed as under:
Sr.No.
Offence Bailable/ Non Bailable Punishment
1. 147 IPC Bailable Two years
2. 148 IPC Bailable Three Years
3. 149 IPC Accordingly as offencesbailable or non bailable
Same as for the offence
4. 186 IPC Bailable Three Years
5. 323 IPC Bailable One Year
6. 332 IPC Non Bailable Three Years
7. 353 IPC Non Bailable Two Years
8. 427 IPC Bailable Two Years
9. 436 IPC Non Bailable Ten Years/ Life
10. 3 of Damage toPublic Property Act
Non Bailable Five Years
11. 4 of Damage toPublic Property Act
Non Bailable Not less than one year butmay extend to ten years
In so far as the provisions of Section 436 IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of Damage to Public Property Act are concerned, it is
debatable as to whether the said provisions can be invoked against the
applicants/ accused under the circumstances as put forth by the
Investigating Agency and this can only be ascertained after the
investigations are complete. Lastly, the accused are no longer required
for any investigations and are in judicial custody for last twenty days.
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 10 of 13
Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
This being the background, the applicants/ accused namely
Zaid Ali, Rehan Khan, Amir, Mohd. Danish, Mohd. Asfaq, Haider
Ali, Danish Malik, Mohd. Athar, Sabeel Ahmed, Abbas Ahmed,
Mohd. Ali Ansari, Furqaan, Irfanuddin, Atif and Mohd. Shamsher
are admitted to bail on their furnishing a personal bond to the tune of
Rs.25,000/ each with one local surety of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the Ld. MM / Link MM / Duty MM, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That during the period of bail, the applicants/ accused shall
not try to contact or influence, directly or indirectly, any of
the witnesses of the present case;
2. That the applicants / accused shall not misuse the benefit of
bail by indulging in commission of similar offence in future;
3. That the applicants/ accused shall appear before the SHO
Police Station Darya Ganj on every Saturday for Four
Weeks from the date of their release and thereafter on last
Saturday of every month till further orders by the Ld. Trial
Court;
4. That the applicants/ accused shall surrender their Passports,
if any, with the Investigating Officer;
5. That the applicants / accused shall intimate the court in case
of change of their addresses.
It is clarified that in case if the applicants/ accused are found
to be violating any of the above conditions, the same shall be a ground
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 11 of 13
Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
for cancellation of bail and the State shall be at liberty to move an
application for cancellation of bail.
I may observe that certain guidelines had been laid down by
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Ajay Verma Vs.
Government of NCT of Delhi” WP (C) 10689/2017 dated 08.03.2018
wherein it was observed and I quote as under:
“......... The trial courts should not only be sensitive butextremely vigilant in cases where they are recordingorders of bail to ascertain the compliance thereof.....
a) When bail is granted, an endorsement shallbe made on the custody warrant of theprisoner, indicating that bail has beengranted, along with the date of the order ofbail.
b) In case of inability of a prisoner to seekrelease despite an order of bail, it is thejudicial duty of the trial courts to undertakea review for the reasons thereof.
c) Every bail order shall be marked on the file.d) It shall be the responsibility of every judge
issuing an order of bail to monitor itsexecution and enforcement.
e) In case a judge stands transferred before theexecution, it shall be the responsibility ofthe successor judge to ensure execution.....”
I note that in the present case the bail bonds have been
directed to be furnished before the Ld. Trial Court/ Ld. MM and hence in
terms of the above observations, the Ld. MM is impressed upon to
inform this court about the following:
1. The date on which conditions imposed by this court are
satisfied;
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 12 of 13
Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
2. The date of release of prisoner from jail;
3. Date of ultimate release of prisoner in case the prisoner
is in jail in some other case.
The copy of this order be sent to Ld. MM and also to the
Superintendent Jail who shall also inform this court about all the three
aspects as contained in the para herein above. The Superintendent Jail is
also directed to inform this court if the prisoner is willingly not
furnishing the personal bond or in case if he is unable to furnish the
surety or any other reason given by the prisoner for not filing the bonds.
One copy of this order be also sent to the SHO Police Station Darya
Ganj to ensure compliance.
On request, one copy of this order be given dasti to the Ld.
Counsels for the accused and one copy be given to the IO for purposes
of compliance.
All the bail applications are accordingly disposed off.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)Dated: 09.01.2020 Judge, MACT01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 09.01.2020
FIR No. 250/2019, PS Darya Ganj, Bail order dated 09.01.2020 Page No. 13 of 13