Man arrested wrongfully in riots case granted bail

HC says senior citizen a victim, his house damaged in incident

October 19, 2020 12:37 am | Updated 02:37 am IST - New Delhi

New Delhi, 05/03/2020: A view of burnt Gokulpuri tyre market, in  riots hit area , in New Delhi on Thursday  Photo:Sushil Kumar Verma / The Hindu

New Delhi, 05/03/2020: A view of burnt Gokulpuri tyre market, in riots hit area , in New Delhi on Thursday Photo:Sushil Kumar Verma / The Hindu

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a 65-year-old man, who was arrested in connection with the north-east Delhi riots, noting there was no evidence against him and that rather he was a victim of the incident.

“That petitioner [Mr. Singh] is a victim of the riots. His house was also damaged by an unlawful assembly to which he has also lodged a complaint dated February 28,” the court said.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait granted bail to Mithan Singh against whom the police have registered a case for rioting at Khajuri Khas police station here.

The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) had opposed bail plea stating that there are serious allegations against Mr. Singh of him playing “an active role in the riots”. The SPP said Mr. Singh’s name cropped up after different complaints were merged.

‘Complaints merged’

The SPP said the complaints made on March 3 and March 5 did not mention Mr Singh’s name but he and his son’s name cropped up on March 13 when other complaints were merged. The SPP said the bail plea deserves to be dismissed.

Justice Kait, however, pointed out that on perusal of the complaints initially made, it reveals that no role was assigned to Mr. Singh, however, in supplementary statements he and his sons are named.

‘No video or photograph’

“It is also a fact that there is no video clip or photograph on record against the petitioner whereby the petitioner was chargesheeted in the present crime,” Justice Kait said adding, “In view of above, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves bail.” The court ordered that Mr. Singh shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000 with one surety in the like amount.

“It is made clear that the trial court shall not get influenced by the observations made by this court while passing the order,” it said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.