N-E Delhi riots: 'Evidence vague, can't assume every member of mob had common objective'

New Delhi: Noting that the evidence was vague and the allegations general, against the six men accused of murdering Dilbar Negi, during the February 2020 Delhi riots, the Delhi High Court said that such evidence and allegations cannot be the basis for concluding that every member of an unlawful assembly had the common intent to commit the crime, and granted bail to the six accused.

Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court said that the veracity of the evidence and allegations against the accused are to be tested during the trial and ruled that at the stage of considering bail, it cannot assume guilt on the part of all members of an unlawful assembly.

The court, in its order, said, "When there is a crowd involved, at the juncture of grant or denial of bail, the Court must hesitate before arriving at the conclusion that every member of the unlawful assembly inhabits a common intention to accomplish the unlawful common object. There cannot be an umbrella assumption of guilt on behalf of every accused by the Court, and every decision must be taken based on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances in the matter therein."

The case pertained to the murder of Negi, who the prosecution said was hacked to death by a mob of rioters, who had first burnt the place where he lived.

In establishing that there exists some doubt in the evidence, which can only be tested during trial, the high court noted that the accused were caught on CCTV cameras near the scene of the crime around 4 pm, whereas the victim, as per CDR, had received a call as late as 8 pm and spoken to an associate. The court said that this meant that the victim was alive well after the accused were spotted and that just this CCT footage is not enough to establish their presence at the scene of the crime when the murder was committed.

While the prosecution opposed the bail arguing that the offences they stand accused of were heinous in nature and arose from a "conspiracy", the court noted that this alone cannot be grounds to deny bail. It also noted that the investigation in the case had been completed and chargesheet had been filed, adding that 72 prosecution witnesses need to be examined at trial, which would take a considerable amount of time.