It makes no difference at this stage that the applicant is entitled to bail just because he is a law student or that his father is a practising lawyer, said a Delhi court while refusing bail to a man accused in February riots.
“In that case, he should have been more vigilant towards his conduct… He is clearly seen involved in at least three cases of rioting,” the court noted.
The observations were made by additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav when he rejected the two bail pleas filed by Tanveer Malik, whose counsel informed that he was a law student and belonged to a family of lawyers.
His counsel Javed Akhtar further submitted that Malik was not seen in any CCTV footage and the investigation had already concluded in a chargesheet negating any need for him to continue being incarcerated.
According to special prosecutor Amit Prasad, however, the case was “sensitive” in nature, involving riots that took place in and around the house of the main accused, Tahir Hussain.
Police alleged that as a part of their “common object”, the accused persons intended to cause maximum damage to the persons and properties of “other community”. It was argued, “The principal accused Tahir Hussain gathered persons from his community on the basis of religious sentiments, promoted enmity between two communities.”
He argued that Malik had been identified by the complaints as a member of the “riotous mob” that had gathered near Hussain’s house. “It is apparent that the riotous mob armed with lethal weapons had engaged in vandalism, looting and torching of public and private properties and their main objective was to cause maximum damage to the lives and properties of persons belonging to the other community,” the court observed.
Source Link
Picture Source :
