On 24th September, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Mukta Gupta, granted bail to a man on the ground that he is no more required for custodial interrogation. The bench while granting the bail also observed that in the present case as per the video footages and the call records of the petitioner, the petitioner left the spot at around 2.00 PM where after the main provocative words/ slogans were shouted by the co-accused at around 4.00 PM.

Facts of the case:

By the present petition the petitioner sought regular bail for offence charged under Section 188/269/270/153-A IPC, 3 Epidemics Disease Act and 51(b) of Disaster Management Act registered at PS Connaught Place. The facts of the case were that the organizers were inviting people to gather at Jantar Mantar on 8th August, 2021 and there was possibility of a large gathering on the occasion, hence adequate force including paramilitary forces were deployed at the spot. On 8 th August, 2021 from various parts of India and from various Hindu organizations people gathered near Jantar Mantar with a large number of people. Since people were not maintaining social distancing and most of them were not wearing mask and maintaining social distancing, the organizers were told to reduce the number of persons as per the undertaking and also disperse as early as possible but they did not pay heed. Later it was informed by some people that some of the participants were raising objectionable slogans against a particular community in their interview to the various media groups even when the programme was going on. However, they could not be identified on the spot. Initially Sections 188/269/270/153-A IPC, 3 Epidemic Disease Act and Section 51 Disaster Management Act was invoked, however during the investigation Sections 120-B/34 IPC was also added. According to the status report petitioner was the co-organizer of the event.

Contention of the petitioner:

The following contention has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner:

  1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody in the above-noted FIR since 10th August, 2021 and all offences except Section 153-A IPC are bailable offences.
  2. It was also submitted that the the petitioner while giving his interview to the Press or making any statement has not passed any offensive remarks against any particular religion which could incite violence and hence has committed no offence under Section 153-A IPC.
  3. It was stated that even as per the statement made to the Press, the petitioner’s demand was of a Hindu Rashtra which cannot be said to be an offence under Section 153-A IPC.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent:

Learned APP for the State opposing the bail application stated the following:

  1. It was submitted that the petitioner was a co-organizer of the event and is thus responsible for the incitement which continued till the evening.
  2. It was contended that in the interview given by the petitioner along with the co-accused Pinki Chaudhary inciting words against the other community have been stated.
  3. It was further submitted that Imposition of Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the area was also informed and that no one can protest at that place without permission. However, they were very aggressive for their demands.

Observation and judgment of the court:

The following observation has been made by the Hon’ble court:

  1. At this stage it would not be appropriate for this Court to express any opinion on the said determination if the petitioner make out an offence under Section 153A IPC or not.
  2. The interview by the petitioner was not an isolated interview and was part of simultaneous conversation with number of speakers. Further large number of people gathered at the spot due to petitioner co-organizing the protest and therefore the petitioner would be liable for any offence committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly.
  3. However, as per the video footages and the call records of the petitioner, the petitioner left the spot at around 2.00 PM whereafter the main provocative words/ slogans were shouted by the co-accused at around 4.00 PM.

Thus, the court found it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that the   petitioner is no more required for custodial interrogation.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Anusree