Man accused of vandalising temple gets bail; court says CDR, 'disclosure' not enough

new delhi: A Delhi court on Wednesday granted bail to a man accused of vandalising a temple during the north-east Delhi riots this February after holding that neither his purported "disclosure" nor his Call Data Records (CDR) location was enough to keep him in jail. The court said there was prima facie nothing else on record to connect the accused to the crime.

Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav granted bail to Gulfam on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 20,000 with one surety of like amount in the case of alleged vandalism of Shiv Temple, situated at Moonga Nagar in Dayalpur area, by a riotous mob on February 25.

Gulfam was lodged in Mandoli jail after he was arrested earlier in the other case earlier and has been granted bail in the connected matter. The court said there was no CCTV footage available on record to corroborate the prosecution's case about his involvement in the matter. And since Gulfam was a resident of the locality, his call detail record location was also not of much consequence, it added.

Besides his own disclosure statement, prima facie there is nothing on record to connect the applicant (Gulfam) with the commission of the crime in this case. Admittedly, the applicant has neither been named in the present FIR nor there are specific allegations against him. There is no CCTV footage available on record to corroborate the prosecution's case," the court said in its order.

It said there was no independent eye witness corroboration of the incident. "The applicant cannot be made to incarcerate in jail for infinity merely on account of the fact that other persons who were part of the riotous mob have to be identified and arrested in the matter, it said. The court directed him not to tamper with evidence, maintain peace and harmony in his locality and install the Aarogya Setu app on his mobile

phone.

Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court has also granted bail to riots accused in a separate case, noting that none of the 11 videos analysed by police from social media showed him taking part in rioting in this particular case. The accused argued in court that he was not even present in Delhi during the riots.