Delhi riots: HC says right to protest, dissent occupies fundamental stature, grants bail to 5

The Delhi High Court on Friday said the sole act of protesting should not be employed as a weapon to justify the incarceration of those who exercised their right to express dissent which occupied a fundamental stature in a democratic polity.

A single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad granted bail to a woman and four men allegedly involved in the offences of rioting, murder of Head Constable Ratan Lal and injuring DCP Amit Sharma in Delhi's North East in February, 2020 following their protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act.

"It is the constitutional duty of the court to ensure that there is no arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in the face of excess of State power. Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and courts must exercise their jurisdiction to uphold the tenets of personal liberty, subject to rightful regulation of the same by validly enacted legislation," the bench said.

Allowing bail to Tabassum, a mother of two children, the court said merely being one of the organisers of the protest as well as being in touch with others who participated in the protest was not sufficient enough to justify the contention that she was involved in the pre-planning of the alleged incident.

Read | Delhi riots: Investigation standard 'very poor' in large number of cases, says court

The court said it would not be prudent to keep the petitioner, who has two minor children, behind bars for an undefined period of time at this stage.

The court also granted relief to 27-year-old computer science graduate from Bijnore, Shadab Ahmad, who was arrested on April 6, 2020, in the case. He was too accused of being one of the main conspirators and has played a vital role in instigating the protestors at Chand Bagh here.

Similarly, the court allowed bail to Suvaleen, arrested on May 17, 2020, saying the petitioner, who is merely 18 years of age, can't be behind bars for an undefined period of time as his continued incarceration with hardened criminals will only be detrimental and was thus not justified.

In the case of Mohd Arif, arrested on March 10, 2020, the bench said there is no evidence to corroborate the contention that he had damaged CCTV cameras. "Merely being caught staring at a CCTV camera right before its dislocation by a co-accused cannot form the basis of this assumption," the court said, adding his presence in the video footage, hiding a danda also does not justify the continued incarceration.

With regard to Furkan, arrested on April 1, 2020, the court his presence in the video footage with a danda in his hand near his residence also does not justify his continued incarceration as the authenticity of the evidence was a matter of trial.

In all cases, the court also noted the charge sheets have already been filed and trial was likely to take a long time.