They may threaten sole public witness: HC denies bail to two

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has now denied bail to two men accused of killing four Muslim men during the north-east Delhi riots last February — ruling that there is a possibility that they might threaten or try to intimidate the sole witness in the cases against them.

A bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad denied Ajay and Shubham bail noting, "Bail jurisprudence attempts to bridge the gap between the personal liberty of an accused and ensuring social security remains intact. It is the intricate balance between securing the personal liberty of an individual and ensuring that this liberty does not lead to an eventual disturbance of public order.

"Therefore, a duty resides in this Court to be conscious of whether granting of bail can lead to a possible impediment in the conducting of investigation that can cause inevitable rupture in public order," the court held.

While Ajay was pleading for bail in three different FIRs of the Dayalpur police station - in relation to the murder of Zakir, Ashfaaq Hussain, Mehtaab, and Jameel — whose bodies were recovered in the aftermath of the riots, Shubham was pleading bail in one case related to the murder of Ashfaaq.

Denying bail to Ajay, the high court held that the accused was spotted and identified in CCTV footage where he can be seen with a mob carrying a sword. It also went on to say that he had confessed to joining the mob against Muslims because his "religious sentiments were hurt" due to the anti-CAA protests.

Ajay had argued that the entire case against him is based on the sole witness' testimony and insisted that this statement was false. He went on to defend his presence at the crime scene by arguing that he was there to protect members of his community.

However, the court noted that Ajay was seen with a sword in his hand and that his CDR location also confirmed his presence at the crime scene. It went on to say that the sole witness in the case lived in the same locality as him and that there was a chance he might threaten or try to influence the sole witness.

Denying bail to Shubham, the court held that the police had recovered a stick — allegedly used in rioting — from his possession. It noted that he also allegedly pelted stones at Muslims and when he saw a mob beating up three Muslim men, he voluntarily joined in.

While the court noted that the witness had identified the accused and that his presence was confirmed by CCTV and CDR location, the authenticity of this technical evidence was a matter to be tested at trial and not at this stage.

Significantly, the high court allowed them to come back with a bail plea after the trial court is finished examining the testimony of the sole public witness in the cases against them. It thus directed the trial court in the cases to finish examining the witness preferably within a month and hear the case on a day-to-day

basis.