“The remit of the court is to dispense justice in accordance with law, not to send messages to society,” the Delhi High Court has observed while rejecting the prosecution’s stance that granting bail to a man, arrested in connection with the recent north-east Delhi riots, at an early stage might send an “adverse message in the society”.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked that, “Prison is primarily for punishing convicts; not for detaining undertrials in order to send any ‘message’ to society’.”
The HC while granting bail to Firoz Khan, a resident of Old Mustafabad here, questioned the veracity of the evidence collated by the police against him in connection with arsoning of a nearby confectionery shop.
Firstly, the court pointed out that the supplementary statement of complainant, Mohd. Shanawaz, the shop owner, does not appear to identify Mr. Khan.
Police presence
Additionally, in the FIR, Mr. Shanawaz had recorded that when the rioters vandalised his shop, he called the police but since the phones were busy, he ran away to save his life. “In the teeth of this statement of the complainant that there was no police help on hand, Constable Vikas claims that he was present at the scene of the offence and inter alia saw the applicant commit the offences,” the HC highlighted.
“Even on first blush, it is not understood as to why the complainant would say that he failed to reach the police by telephone, if Ct. Vikas was already present there,” the court questioned.
No CCTV cameras
It further queried how the Delhi police was able to identify Mr. Khan using footage of a CCTV camera of a local school which was placed 400 metres and a 5-minute walk away from the shop.
The prosecution has admitted before the High Court that no CCTV footage is available of the the incident itself. And footage from some cameras that are installed by the PWD in various parts of the area was still awaited.
Justice Bhambhani, additionally, said, “When offences are alleged to have been committed by an ‘unlawful assembly’, after concluding investigation, the State has been able to identify and name only two persons from amongst a crowd of some 250-300 persons”.
It said the co-accused in the present case, Mohd. Anwar, has already been granted bail in cases arising from the same incidents of rioting in the same area.
The public prosecutor argued that there was sufficient basis to hold Mr. Khan in judicial custody. This was contested by senior advocate Rebecca M. John, appearing for Mr. Khan, on the ground that Mr. Shanawaz has not in any manner identified or connected her client to the alleged offences.
In the status report, the police had stated that “...Granting of bail at this early stage may send an adverse message in the society and such crimes should not be allowed to happen in the national capital...”
The court took strong exception to the statement saying, “this court is of the view that that cannot be basis for denying bail”.
“It is this sentiment, whereby the State demands that undertrials be kept in prison inordinately without any purpose, that leads to overcrowding of jails; and leaves undertrials with the inevitable impression that they are being punished even before trial and therefore being treated unfairly by the system,” the court said.
“If at the end of a protracted trial, the prosecution is unable to bring home guilt, the State cannot give back to the accused the years of valuable life lost in prison,” Justice Bhambhani said.
On the other hand, an accused would of course be made to undergo his sentence after it has been awarded, after trial, the High Court added.
Published - June 01, 2020 11:33 pm IST
