Delhi Riots: HC Grants Bail to 3 Men Arrested With ‘No Evidence’

The trio was arrested in April last year in connection with the death of one Shahid Alam.

The Delhi High Court granted bail to three accused allegedly involved in the death of one Shahid in the North East Delhi riots.

(Photo: IANS)

The Delhi High Court on Friday, 19 February, granted bail to three accused allegedly involved in the death of one Shahid Alam in the North-East Delhi riots that took place in February 2020, and said that there was “no evidence whatsoever, either direct or circumstantial or forensic”.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, while passing the order, said, “Neither there was any motive whatsoever either for them or for any other person allegedly present on the roof of Saptarishi building, to commit the offence, nor has the prosecution alleged any motive in the entire case. Thus, it is hard to believe that a communal riot can be used by the petitioners to cause the death of the person of their own community.”

The trio – Junaid, Chand Mohan and Irshad – was arrested in April 2020 in connection with the death Shahid, who succumbed to the gunshot injury on the rooftop of the Saptarishi building during the riots.

The court also relied on statements made by witnesses Mukesh, Narayan, Arvind and their families who said that the three accused had asked them to leave the scene of the crime to save their lives.

“If they were really involved in this communal riot and wanted to cause harm to the members of the other community/Hindu community, they would not have tried to save the lives of the above-named members of the other community,” the order said.

The prosecution had stated that on 24 February 2020 some of the rioters went to the rooftops of certain buildings, from where they indulged in firing and stone-pelting during the North-East Delhi riots. However, the police, in its investigation, could not provide evidence that the gunshot was fired from the same building that the deceased was on.

“Because they are not sure that from where this gunshot injury came, then how can they be sure that it is a close-range shot when they are already mentioning that this is a ‘possibility’ but not a surety or certainty[sic.],” the court said.

The court order read that the post-mortem report made it clear that the wound was caused by long-distance firing. It added that the investigating agency has said the main assailant, who caused the gunshot injury, is yet to be arrested.