New Delhi: Delhi high Court An accused in a case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots was denied bail on Monday, saying it was “pre-planned and pre-planned”. conspiracy to disturb the law and order in the city” and the incidents “did not happen in an instant”.
Justice Subramaniam Prasad, while considering a bail plea filed by one Mohammad Ibrahim in the alleged murder of Delhi Police head constable Ratan Lal, observed that CCTV cameras were systematically cut and destroyed in the vicinity of the spot. . The incident and “innumerable rioters mercilessly descended upon a hopeless contingent of police officers with sticks, batons, bats etc”.
“The riots that rocked the country’s national capital in February 2020 clearly did not happen in an instant, and the conduct of the protesters in the video footage, which has been put on record by the prosecution, clearly portrays this. There was a deliberate attempt to disrupt the normal life of the people in the city along with disturbing the functioning of the city,” the court said.
“The systematic cutting and destruction of CCTV cameras also confirms the existence of a pre-planned and pre-planned conspiracy to disturb the law and order in the city,” it said.
Rejecting Ibrahim’s bail plea, the court said the available video footage showing the petitioner with a sword was “quite offensive” and sufficient to keep him in custody.
“From a perusal of the material on record, the court has come to know that the petitioner has been identified in several CCTV footage, carrying a sword and instigating the mob. Conclusive evidence which would have inclined this court to prolong the imprisonment of the petitioner. is that the weapon which is being carried by the petitioner is capable of causing grievous injuries and/or death, and is prima facie a dangerous weapon,” the court said.
The judge, while acknowledging the importance of individual liberty in a democratic polity, clarified that “personal liberty cannot be abused in a manner that seeks to destabilize the fabric of civilized society and cause injury to other persons”. “.
“Even though the petitioner cannot be seen at the crime scene, he was part of the mob as the petitioner had deliberately traveled 1.6 km away from his neighborhood with a sword which could only be used to incite violence and incitement to violence. damages,” the court said.
Petitioner Ibrahim was arrested in December 2020 and is in judicial custody since then.
He sought bail on the ground that he did not participate in any protests or riots at any point of time and the place in the prosecution record did not place him anywhere near the crime scene.
The court, in a separate order, granted bail to one Salim Khan, observing that in the absence of any material to show that he was part of an unlawful assembly at the crime scene, the veracity of the charges leveled against him could be tested. Is. during the test.
Justice Subramaniam Prasad, while considering a bail plea filed by one Mohammad Ibrahim in the alleged murder of Delhi Police head constable Ratan Lal, observed that CCTV cameras were systematically cut and destroyed in the vicinity of the spot. . The incident and “innumerable rioters mercilessly descended upon a hopeless contingent of police officers with sticks, batons, bats etc”.
“The riots that rocked the country’s national capital in February 2020 clearly did not happen in an instant, and the conduct of the protesters in the video footage, which has been put on record by the prosecution, clearly portrays this. There was a deliberate attempt to disrupt the normal life of the people in the city along with disturbing the functioning of the city,” the court said.
“The systematic cutting and destruction of CCTV cameras also confirms the existence of a pre-planned and pre-planned conspiracy to disturb the law and order in the city,” it said.
Rejecting Ibrahim’s bail plea, the court said the available video footage showing the petitioner with a sword was “quite offensive” and sufficient to keep him in custody.
“From a perusal of the material on record, the court has come to know that the petitioner has been identified in several CCTV footage, carrying a sword and instigating the mob. Conclusive evidence which would have inclined this court to prolong the imprisonment of the petitioner. is that the weapon which is being carried by the petitioner is capable of causing grievous injuries and/or death, and is prima facie a dangerous weapon,” the court said.
The judge, while acknowledging the importance of individual liberty in a democratic polity, clarified that “personal liberty cannot be abused in a manner that seeks to destabilize the fabric of civilized society and cause injury to other persons”. “.
“Even though the petitioner cannot be seen at the crime scene, he was part of the mob as the petitioner had deliberately traveled 1.6 km away from his neighborhood with a sword which could only be used to incite violence and incitement to violence. damages,” the court said.
Petitioner Ibrahim was arrested in December 2020 and is in judicial custody since then.
He sought bail on the ground that he did not participate in any protests or riots at any point of time and the place in the prosecution record did not place him anywhere near the crime scene.
The court, in a separate order, granted bail to one Salim Khan, observing that in the absence of any material to show that he was part of an unlawful assembly at the crime scene, the veracity of the charges leveled against him could be tested. Is. during the test.
.