The Delhi High Court on Monday denied bail to an accused in a case concerning the northeast Delhi riots of 2020 and commented that the riots were planned and calculated to cause disruptions and were not triggered by any incident.
Passing the order, Justice Subramonium Prasad, said “The February 2020 riots were a conspiracy, planned and executed. They evidently did not take place in a spur of the moment.”
The court also said, in the video footage submitted by prosecution, it was clear from the conduct of the protesters that the riots were a planned attempt to disrupt normal life and the functioning of the government.
The High Court’s stern remarks came while dealing with a bail application moved by one Mohd Ibrahim in the case concerning the alleged murder of Delhi Police head constable Ratan Lal
The court observed that there was a systematic disconnection and destruction of the CCTV cameras in areas near the place of the incident and innumerable rioters ruthlessly descended with sticks, dandas, bats, etc. upon a hopelessly outnumbered cohort of police officials.
Dismissing the bail application of Ibrahim, the court stated that the available video footage showing the petitioner with the sword was quite egregious and sufficient to keep him in custody. Ibrahim has been linked to the killing of Head Constable Ratan Lal on February 24 by a mob of protesters. His lawyer had argued that Ratan Lal’s death was not caused by a sword.
Ibrahim also claimed that he was carrying the sword only to protect himself and his family.
The clinching evidence that tilts this court towards prolonging the incarceration of the petitioner is that the weapon which is being carried by the petitioner is capable of causing grievous injuries and/or death, and is prima facie a dangerous weapon, the court stated.
Even though the petitioner cannot be seen at the scene of crime, he was a part of the mob for the sole reason that the petitioner had consciously traveled 1.6 km away from his neighborhood with a sword which could only be used to incite violence and inflict damage, the court said.
