The Delhi High Court stated that continued detention in judicial custody is clearly not required for proper investigation of the acts of offence. HC granted bail to eight people, who were arrested in a case related to the protest and the vandalism outside the residence of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in March.
The eight people, who were arrested on March 31, had approached the high court for relief after their bail pleas were dismissed by the trial court.
The high court said there is no allegation of damage to public property through arson and fire or other means and noted that the accused have been in custody for 14 days. After examination of the evidence, it stated that there is no possibility of the applicants tampering with the evidence or inducing or threatening any witness.
Others who had been identified in photos have been issued notices and are also participating in the investigations. Thus, the continued custody of the accused persons in jail is not called for only because some investigations are still going on, Justice Asha Menon stated.
The court granted them bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety bond each for a sum of Rs 35,000 and directed them not to leave Delhi without intimating the SHO concerned and also barred them from going beyond the NCR region without permission after commencement of trial.
It also directed them not to directly or indirectly contact the complainant or any other witnesses and said any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt at influencing the witnesses.
The applicants shall drop a pin location on Google Maps so that the location of the applicants is available to the Investigating Officer, it said.
The FIR itself records that initially, the protestors gathered outside the I.P. College and that as the crowd swelled the members of the Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha started moving forward, but significantly there is no mention of any weapon or arms or call for violence. The FIR merely states that the applicants jumped the barricades.
It is also stated that “the police sought to reason with them but they did not listen to the police and kept moving towards the CM’s residence. There is a reference to jostling, during which some policemen have received injuries. Four policemen stated to be injured are not hospitalized. Their MLCs have also been collected, only the opinion in respect of two policemen is awaited”.
The court said regarding the damage caused to public property that it cannot at any stage be overlooked, however, the facts are to be considered to analyze the extent of the damage.
Here, the allegations are that the protestors vandalized some of the CCTV cameras and an arm of a boom barrier and had also smeared paint on the main gate of the CM’s residence.
There is no dispute that others involved in the protest have also been issued notices under section 41A of the CrPC, pursuant to which they are joining investigations. Thus, the continued detention of the applicants in judicial custody is clearly not required for proper investigation of the offences, it said.
There is no allegation of damage to public property through arson, fire or other means on a scale that would be a far more serious matter than what has been alleged against the applicants. The applicants are mostly in their twenties except for three who are older, it said.
Due to the fact that it was not a serious incident as there was no fire or the accused persons were not carrying any weapons, and they were just protesting outside the CM’s house when the situation went out of the control, they don’t need to be kept in the prison as the investigation goes on.
