Trial court cites High Court order to grant bail to Delhi riots accused in other cases
NEW DELHI: Following a Delhi High Court order, which had granted bail to North-east Delhi riots accused Firoz Khan in one of the cases against, a trial court in the city has now granted bail to him in all other riotsrelated cases against him registered by the Delhi Police citing the High Court order, which had held that imprisonment should be a punishment for convicts and should not be used to “send a message” to the society.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani had earlier held that prison is not for detaining undertrials in order to “send a message to society” while granting bail to Khan in a riots-related case, where he was accused by the prosecution of being part of a mob that had burned down a confectionary shop near the Rajdhani Public School which was also burned down in the riots.
While in the case of the confectionery shop burning, the prosecution had cited a constable at the scene as an eye-witness and CCTV footage from the Rajdhani Public School as evidence of Khan’s involvement in the crime, the High Court had pointed out inconsistencies with the prosecution’s version of events and granted him bail despite vehement opposition from the Delhi Police counsel.
On Monday, a trial court here cited the High Court judgement and granted bail to Khan, a truck driver from Old Mustafabad, in other FIRS registered against him in the other riots-related cases.
The court noted that the circumstances of the cases fell within the purview of the High Court bail order, and the fact that the accused presence was no longer required for the investigation, “the bail application stands allowed and accused is directed to be released from JC in this case”.
According to Khan’s lawyer, he has been in judicial custody since April 3 after having been arrested by the Delhi Police. Khan has been granted bail one a personal bond and surety bond of Rs 20,000 each.
The Delhi Police had again vehemently opposed the bail plea, alleging that the accused was part of a riotous mob that had taken part in stone-pelting and destruction of public property with other co-accused.