Delhi Riots Bail: Another Story of No Evidence, Police Inaction

On 16 March, the Delhi High Court granted bail to four people – Arshad Qayyum, Gulfam, Irshad Ahmad, and Liyakat Ali – in the FIR pertaining to the Delhi riots. The four petitioners are accused in FIR No. 116/2020 for offences under sections 109, 114, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 323, 392, 395, 427, 436, 454, 505, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.While granting relief to the four accused, a single-judge bench of Justice Suresh Kait relied upon the grounds that seem to appear in multiple bail orders in the Delhi riots cases – no incriminating/CCTV evidence linking the accused to the incident, and unusual police inaction.“Court fails to understand as to why despite having good understanding of law and order, a police official who is witness to riots would neither call PCR nor will make a DD entry when the witnessed the rioting.”Delhi High CourtThe prosecution’s case was based on primarily three pieces of evidence:Statement of police constable Sangram Singh who said he identified one of the accused present on the terrace of Tahir Hussain along with his associates and instigating the mob of rioters “to pelt stones on the persons of other community.”Call data records of the accused and the relevant video evidence. The prosecution claims that the CDR shows that the accused was present at the scene of the incident.Statements of Head Constable Vikram Singh and Head Constable Virender who saw Arshad Qayyum breaking the shutter lock of Bharat Vatika parking and instigating the rioters.The police underlined the multiple FIRs registered against the four accused to argue that the rioting incident was a result of a “deep-rooted conspiracy” which these four men hatched with Tahir Hussain. The police further argued that the constables, who are eyewitnesses, have “vividly described the role of the petitioners.”The counsel appearing for the accused pointed out that there has been an inordinate delay of three days in registering of the FIR. They further argued that the eyewitness who registered the complaint did not mention the names of any of the accused in the FIR.The accused’s lawyers also highlighted that the statements of the police constables, who claim to be eyewitnesses, were recorded two months after the incident took place – without providing any explanation for this delay. They also contended that the said constables did not even make a DD entry of what they saw till 16 March, which is three weeks after the alleged incident took place. It was further argued by the petitioners seeking bail that there’s no video evidence that links them to the scene of the incident, nor has the police made any recovery from them.The court in its order has categorically pointed out the present FIR doesn’t specifically name any of the four accused. It also noted that it’s a matter of record that there has been a delay of three days in registering the FIR. While taking into consideration the delay caused in recording the statements of the three police constables who also claim to be eyewitnesses, the court went on to note:“The testimony of eye witnesses, namely, Pradeep Verma, Surender Singh and Rajbir Singh Yadav under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 14.03.2020 and none of them neither made any PCR call nor any DD entry was made.”On the issue of call data records, one of the key evidence of the police, the court said that “it is not disputed that the call detail record of prime accused Tahir Hussain does not match with those of petitioners.”“Moreover, there is no evidence against the petitioners such like CCTV footage, video clip or photo to connect the petitioners with the incident in question and nothing incriminating has been recovered from their possession.” Delhi High CourtThis clearly indicates that the accused persons had to stay in prison for a year on evidence that doesn’t even prove their presence at the scene of the incident. The court also takes note of this fact while highlighting that the petitioners cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer time and the veracity of allegations levelled against them can be tested during trial.The lack of incriminating evidence and suspicious police investigation have made appearance multiple times in orders written by the Delhi High Court granting bail to the accused.In Firoz Khan’s case, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that the complainant nowhere identified the accused in the FIR. Justice Bhambani further rejected the CCTV evidence of the police by noting that it is doubtful that a CCTV camera could capture incidents that were taking place 400 metres away. In Danish’s case, the court took note of the fact that none of the public witnesses named him. Moreover, the police constables did not name Danish in their original statements, and his name only appeared in the supplementary statements filed by the same constables 12 days later.The court had also cast doubts in the manner in which the police had taken Danish’s disclosure statement. “How can a man who’s only 10th pass write such a disclosure statement’, the court had pointed out. Apart from this, the court also took note of the usual loopholes in the CCTV and CDR evidence – saying that neither of them connects the accused to the scene of the incident.Bilal Anwar Khan, a lawyer who appeared for Danish, Faizan, and many others accused of rioting, told The Quint that the police was successfully able to challenge bail applications before trial courts on the basis of the same dubious CCTV and CDR evidence. Khan says that these videos and records were not even verified through a forensic science lab.The bail given to the men accused of the Delhi riots has come at a major cost. The cost gets aggravated when it is revealed that the only evidence that was keeping them in jail didn’t even connect them to the crime.The fact that faulty investigation and inadequate evidence, as noted in these judicial orders, led to prolonged incarceration of the accused persons, is nothing short of a ‘miscarriage of justice’. It is a clear violation of the rule which says that bail is the rule and the jail is an exception. While the liberty for some might be secured, the larger issues of institutional flaws that lead to such miscarriages of justice in the first place remain woefully unaddressed.

BECOME A MEMBER

Delhi Riots Bail: Another Story of No Evidence, Police Inaction

Yet another HC order granting bail to accused in Delhi riots case reveals lack of evidence and police inaction.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from news and law

Topics: Delhi High Court Bail Delhi Riots 2020