Accused Should Not Be Unnecessarily Deprived Of Personal Liberty: Delhi HC Grants Bail To Person Accused Of Murdering Head Constable Ratan Lal During Delhi Riots
The Delhi High Court granted bail to a person accused of murdering head constable Ratan Lal during the Delhi Riots.
The Court was hearing a Bail Application seeking grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC in FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 353, 332, 333, 323, 109, 144, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 188, 336, 427, 307, 302, 308, 397, 412, 201, 120B and 34 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed, “this Court is of the considered opinion that it is the duty of the judicial pillars of this Country that an accused is not unnecessarily deprived of his personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India…this Court is inclined to allow the present petition seeking regular bail…”
Advocate Deepak Kohli appeared for the Appellant and SPP Ashish Dutta appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Petitioner filed the application for regular bail following events when communal riots broke out in North-East Delhi during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. Protestors allegedly moved to Wazirabad Main Road with weapons, attacking police personnel and causing severe injuries to Head Constable Ratan Lal, who later succumbed to his injuries. The FIR claimed that the Petitioner threw petroleum bombs which led to the unfortunate death of Ratan Lal. Given the same, the Petitioner was arrested.
The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) and quoted, “…a series of factors need to be considered while deciding a case for bail and an accused shall not be denied the said relief merely on the ground of seriousness of accusations which are against the sentiments of the general public at large as the same needs to be corroborated with other material factors.”
The Court said that in case a Court finds sufficient grounds to enlarge an accused on bail, it must exercise its powers discretionarily and uphold the ends of justice to an accused languishing in jail while ensuring the proper enforcement of procedural law as envisaged in the provisions of the BNSS.
Accordingly, the Court released the Petitioner on regular bail.
