The High Court of Delhi while adjudicating upon a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) granted bail to Devangana Kalita, a member of the Pinjra Tod group charged for her alleged role in the North- East Delhi riots case.
BACKGROUND
In February this year, riots broke in the North-East Districts of N.C.T. of Delhi, wherein 2 Police officials were murdered by members of an ‘unlawful assembly’ which was constituted for the purpose of Rioting. In the present case, serious charges were framed in the FIR filed against the petitioner (Devangana Kalita) under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, and that of the P.D.P.P. Act for playing a crucial role in organizing the unlawful assembly and facilitating the commission of the crimes as enumerated above.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
COURT’S OBSERVATIONS
The Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Raju re-emphasized the role played by Devangana Kalita in agitating the riots.
“...The video clips of 05.01.2020 show her speech against C.A.A./N.R.C. and her initial speech for mobilization and instigation for the protest... The mobile phone connectivity chart of the petitioner proves that she was in regular touch with the rioters/conspirators of the protests/ riot in different locations of North-East Delhi.”
While relying on several Supreme Court Judgments, the Counsel also submitted that the degree of involvement of the petitioner and the role she played in the whole fiasco, the gravity of the offenses committed, and the possibility of her absconding are all substantial reasons based on which even other accused in the same FIR were denied bail.
Furthermore, he mentioned that the petitioner was an active member of the “Pinjratod” group which had been incessantly campaigning against the law enforcement and investigating agencies on various social media and other platforms with the purpose of obfuscating the process of law instituted against her. The Counsel also highlighted the possibility of the prosecution witnesses getting influenced by the Petitioner, given her Group’s access to abundant resources and wide network.
On the other hand, Senior Counsel Mr. Kabil Sibbal who appeared on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there was no concrete evidence to prove the Petitioner’s involvement in the alleged riot. The only evidence that was adduced to corroborate the allegations against her was the photos and videos which were ceased from the crime scene. He contended that: even in those shreds of evidence, the petitioner couldn’t be seen anywhere near the place where the alleged incidents took place. He further submitted that no attempts had been made by the petitioner to either flee from justice or tamper with the evidence. He also emphasized that the continued custody of the petitioner would not serve any purpose in carrying out the investigation.
He also pointed out the fact that: the petitioner was already being investigated by the PS Crime Branch Special Unit for her alleged involvement in conspiring behind the Delhi Riots and it is trite law that multiple FIRs on the same grounds cannot be registered. Mr. Sibbal also highlighted the meritorious academic and career record of the petitioner and the contribution she has made to the society peacefully within the boundaries of the law.
Join our Social Feeds for Daily Quizzes & More Here
The Court observed that the Petitioner’s case fulfills the following triple test upheld by the Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement:
1) Fleeing from justice: The Court noted that the petitioner was arrested without notice under section 41A of Cr.P.C. She cooperated with the investigating authorities and handed over her phone along with its passcode and joined the investigation instantaneously. The Petitioner did not even file for an anticipatory bail or resisted the arrest, which succinctly indicates that she was not trying to evade the process of law.
2) Tampering with evidence: In this respect, the Court came to the conclusion that: she didn’t possess any document or evidence (of any nature) that might have facilitated the investigation in any possible manner. Also, all the necessary evidence and testimonies reflecting upon the alleged participation of the Petitioner were already available with the investigating agency. Therefore, the Court saw no possibility of her indulging in tampering with the evidence to sabotage the investigation.
3) Influencing witnesses: The Court noted that the petitioner was arrested 3 months after the FIR was registered and she didn’t hold an authoritative position powerful enough to influence the witnesses. It was further observed that: since the given test was applicable in the case of a public servant/police official, it didn’t hold much value in the present case.
The Court also reiterated the settled legal position governing the grant of bail. Referring to Ashok Sagar v. State (NCLT of Delhi) (2018), the Court observed that it is not necessary to incarcerate the accused when there were sufficient reasons to believe that the presence of the petitioner for trial and investigation could be ensured otherwise.
The court observed:
“...no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent’s investigation by a grant of relief to the petitioner, and she would be prevented from suffering further unnecessary harassment, humiliation, and unjustified detention. ...and as such, the continued custody of the petitioner in the subject FIR would serve no purpose.”
In light of the above-mentioned submissions advanced by the learned Counsels from both sides, the Court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to prove the alleged involvement of the accused in delivering hate speeches or inciting the crowd involved in the riots. Accordingly, the Court passed an order to release the petitioner on bail upon her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety in respect of the same amount, and issued other necessary directions to the Petitioner.
CASE DETAILS
CASE NAME: Devangana Kalita V. State Of Nct Delhi
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.09.2020
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
0 Comments