Delhi HC Declines Anticipatory Bail Of Jahangirpuri Riots Accused, Reinforces Duty To Maintain Peace, Harmony

The Delhi High Court, on August 17, denied anticipatory bail to an accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 332, 307, 323, 427, 436, 109, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860.

In the matter which pertained to Jahangirpuri Riots, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that, “The conduct of the accused was allegedly an attempt to disturb the communal harmony of the area by trying to create a rift between two communities.”

Serious Allegations Against Accused

The factual matrix of the allegations, briefly, against the petitioner were that the instant FIR was registered on the statement of Inspector Rajiv Ranjan who stated that on April 16, 2022, he along with other staff were deployed for security arrangement in the area of Jahangirpuri as a procession was to be taken out on the eve of Shri Hanuman Jayanti.

The procession was proceeding peacefully till it reached Jama Masjid, C-Block, Jahangir Puri at around 6 p.m., when a person named Ansar came there and started arguing with the members of the procession. Several of his associates also came to the spot and joined Ansar and arguments culminated in stone pelting and stampede. Additional force was called to control the situation and senior police officers also reached the spot.

The mob went out of control and 52 tear gas shells had to be fired. The rioters were armed with deadly weapons, including fire arms, swords, etc., and they caused injuries to as many as 8 police officers, including SI Meda Lal, who sustained a bullet injury on his left forearm, due to firing by the rioters. Another civilian, who was part of the procession, also sustained injuries. The rioters damaged vehicles and set a Scooty on fire.

State further submitted that during the course of investigations and questioning of people already apprehended, it was revealed that the petitioner was one of the main conspirators and perpetrators of the entire incident and was evading process of law. It was the petitioner who was actively involved in aggravating the situation and instigating a particular community for pelting stones, bottles, and attacking the Hanuman Jayanti procession with firearms, swords, bricks, bottles and other weapons. He had spread message amongst the local residents and his community to accumulate stones, brick-pieces, glass bottles, swords and other arms, to be used at an appropriate time. 

The petitioner had hatched deep conspiracy to disturb the communal harmony of the country. It was further submitted that the FSL team found bricks, glass, ceramic pieces, and seized them from the terrace belonging to the petitioner.

Power Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C To Be Exercised In Exceptional Cases

The Court observed that it was clear that the power exercisable under Section 438 of the Code was extraordinary in character and it was to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appeared that the person might be falsely implicated or where there were reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty.

The Court cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors (2011) 1 SCC 694 wherein it was observed that: -

“3. The society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is the offence against the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of the society. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail and on the other hand absolute adherence of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty.”

The Court noted that the accused herein had been named by one of the eye witness as one of the perpetrator involved in the riots and incriminating material which was used in the riots had been recovered from the terrace of the house owned by the accused/applicant only. It is not disputed that the said premises is owned by the accused herein.

Custodial Interrogation Of Accused Warranted

The Court also observed that the accused had been absconding and had not cooperated in the investigation, rather, proceedings under section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. had been initiated against him. 

The Court therefore, observed that custodial interrogation of the accused was warranted in the present case.

Fundamental Right Of Personal Liberty Subject To Duties

Pertinently, the Court stated that, “No doubt, the fundamental right of personal liberty has been granted to every citizen of this country. However, the same is subject to duties which are in turn cast upon every citizen. In the present case, the applicant has evaded arrest and proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. have been concluded against him.

The proceedings under section 83 Cr.P.C. are pending. The applicant has not co-operated with the investigating agency. Though on one hand, it is argued that the applicant was in charge of ensuring peace in the locality, on the other hand, his conduct of not co-operating with the investigating agency or even joining investigation despite the fact that suspicious material has been found on the terrace of his house during the Jahangir Puri riots points to the contrary.”

Ensuring Peace, Harmony Most Sacred Duty

The Court also noted that ensuring peace and harmony in the country and communities was the most sacred duty of not only the law enforcing agencies and the Courts but duty had been caste on every citizen of this country that they would maintain peace and harmony and ensured that their acts did not instigate and promote communal hatred or ill-will.

Grave Allegations, Deeply Scar The Communal Fabric Of Society

The Court noted that, “these were grave allegations of acts which taking advantage of fact of eve of festival of one community deeply scars the communal fabric of the society. An individual who is not cooperating with the investigation agencies to ascertain whether he partook in such nefarious activities, in my opinion, is not entitled to anticipatory bail or claim infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is a strange paradox that the applicant claims he is area incharge of “Aman Committee”, but has not joined investigation of offences which have defeated the very purpose and aim of such committee.”

The bail application was henceforth, dismissed.