A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court has, while denying bail to Mohd Ibrahim in Head Constable Ratan Lal murder case during the North East Delhi riots, observed that individual liberty cannot be misused in a way that it threatens the fabric of society by attempting to destabilize it or cause hurt to others. Justice Subramonium Prasad made this crucial observation while passing an order in connection with the murder of Head Constable Ratan Lal and causing head injuries to a DCP during the North-East Delhi riots that rocked the national capital last year. [Mohd Ibrahim v. State (NCT of Delhi)]
Factual Background
The Petitioner sought bail in an FIR registered for offences under Sections 186/ 353/ 332/ 323/ 147/ 148/ 149/ 336/ 427/ 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The FIR relates to the violence that took place in the National Capital Territory of Delhi in the month of February 2020.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court noted that a perusal of the material on record indicates that the Petitioner was added by way of chargesheet for offences under Sections 186/ 353/ 332/ 333/ 323/ 109/ 144/ 147/ 148/ 149/ 153A/ 188/ 336/ 427/ 307/ 308/ 302/ 201/ 120B/ 34 IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act. The Petitioner was arrested on 07.12.2020 and has been in judicial custody since then.
The Court also noted that it was stated in the charge sheet that the Petitioner was identified on various CCTV footage with a sword in his hand, leading other rioters who were coming from the Mustafabad side. It is also stated that the Petitioner had admitted in his disclosure statement that he had assaulted the police personnel with his sword. Furthermore, the chargesheet reveals that the clothes which were worn by the Petitioner on the day of the alleged incident and were visible on the CCTV footage have been recovered from the house of the Petitioner at his instance. The chargesheet further states that the CDR of the Petitioner places him at the SOC. It also states that the Petitioner was in constant touch with the main organiser-cum-conspirator Suleman Siddiqui.
The Court observed that,
“...in order to contend the application of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B and for an indictable offence to be accomplished, there is no requirement for an overt act to be done in furtherance of the conspiracy. It is the common design which gains utmost importance, and the conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed with regard to all its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of this common design. There is also emphasis which is placed on the encouragement and support which co-conspirators render to such enterprises because in the absence of the same, accomplishing such a common design would otherwise be impossible. Furthermore, in order to discern the complicity of the accused, one needs to examine the circumstances before, during and after the occurrence.”
"the Petitioner does not satisfy the ingredients to claim bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused of the Petitioner who has been enlarged on bail unlike the Petitioner herein, none of the co-accused have been caught with a dangerous weapon capable of inflicting grievous injuries and/or even causing death which indicates that there was in existence a design to commit an offence perpetrating the offences mentioned in the FIR.
Observations about the riots and their impact on the Nation
"The Court opined that the riots which shook the National Capital of the country in February 2020 evidently did not take place in a spur of the moment, and the conduct of the protestors who are present in the video footage which has been placed on record by the prosecution visibly portrays that it was a calculated attempt to dislocate the functioning of the Government as well as to disrupt the normal life of the people in the city. The systematic disconnection and destruction of the CCTV cameras also confirm the existence of a preplanned and pre-meditated conspiracy to disturb law and order in the city. This is also evident from the fact that innumerable rioters ruthlessly descended with sticks, dandas, bats etc. upon a hopelessly outnumbered cohort of police officials.”
Held
The Hon'ble High Court opined that,
"This Court is of the opinion that even though the Petitioner cannot be seen at the Scene of Crime, he clearly was a part of the mob for the sole reason that the Petitioner had consciously travelled 1.6 kms away from his neighbourhood with a sword which could only be used to incite violence and inflict damage. This Court has previously opined on the importance of personal liberty in a democratic polity, but it is to be categorically noted that individual liberty cannot be misused in a manner that threatens the very fabric of civilised society by attempting to destabilise it and cause hurt to other persons. In light of this, the footage of the Petitioner with the sword is quite egregious, and is therefore sufficient to keep the Petitioner in custody.”
In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Petitioner was not granted bail.
Case Details
Case Name: Mohd Ibrahim v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case Number: Bail Appln. 2704/2021
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :