12 people granted bail in Turkman Gate demolition protest case
A Delhi court on Tuesday granted bail to 12 persons held for alleged violence during a protest against a demolition drive near the Faiz-e-Ilahi mosque in Turkman Gate last month. The Tis Hazari court observed that the prosecution failed to identify or establish the specific roles of the persons.
Passing a common order on multiple bail applications, Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh of Tis Hazari Courts based the order on multiple aspects.
The court observed a lack of specific footage highlighting the role of the accused in the unlawful assembly, the absence of any grievous injury to the police personnel, no evidence showing overt use of social media, and an absence of substantive damage to public property.
A total of 20 persons were arrested by the Delhi Police for their alleged involvement in the protest, which took place during a so-called “anti-encroachment drive” near the Faiz-e-Elahi mosque in the Ramlila Maidan area on the intervening night of January 6 and 7.
The incident allegedly took place when government officials, acting pursuant to a High Court order, proceeded to remove an illegal construction near Faiz-i-Ilahi Masjid. Following the incident, an FIR was registered under Sections 221, 132, 121, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 223(4), 109(1), 238, 49 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
According to the prosecution, the accused persons conspired to obstruct public officials in the discharge of their duties. It was further alleged that pelting stones at police personnel endangered their lives, thereby attracting the offence of attempt to murder.
Counsel Supantha Sinha, Sidharth Tulsi Ganeshan, Aditya Krishna and Vertika Mani Tripathi, appearing for one of the accused on behalf of the All India Lawyers Association for Justice and Network for Inclusive Liberty by Advocacy (NILA) Trust, while advancing their arguments, brought to the attention of the Court that the accused was not apprehended from the scene of the incident but was arrested two days later from a different location.
It was also pointed out that the prosecution had failed to bring any material on record to show the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime.
The Court granted bail upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹50,000.
The Court also took note of the fact that the accused was arrested subsequently from a different location and not from the site of the alleged incident.
Reiterating the well-settled principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the Court emphasised the need for caution in cases involving large crowds, where individual attribution of specific acts can be inherently difficult.
