A total of 20 men were arrested after violence broke out during demolition of encroachments next to a mosque near Turkman Gate on January 6.
Last month, a 25-year-old man who was allegedly a part of a mob was granted bail. Bail pleas of the remaining seven are yet to come up in court.
What the court said on video footage
In the bail order dated February 17, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Bhupinder Singh of Tis Hazari Court pointed out that the footage relied upon by the prosecution did not “prima facie demonstrate unmistakable identification” of the accused persons.
“It has been submitted by the prosecution that the incident was captured through drone surveillance and other video recordings. However, despite detailed arguments in that regard, no specific footage was played before this court during the… hearing to prima facie demonstrate clear and unmistakable identification of any of the present applicants as actively participating in stone pelting or committing any specific overt act,” said the judge.
Story continues below this ad
“… the absence of demonstrative identification at this stage assumes relevance for the limited purpose of assessing the necessity of further incarceration, particularly where identity and individual role are in dispute,” he added.
The accused had submitted in court that they were not clearly visible in CCTV footage and that there was no footage or photograph confirming their active participation in the clash or stone pelting.
They also argued that as their homes were close to the scene of crime, they had stepped out to either check on a family member or to see what the noise was about — but did not join the mob.
On the other hand, police had stated that the accused persons were “clearly visible” in video recordings of the incident and that their call-detail records (CDRs) corroborate their presence at the spot.
Story continues below this ad
Last month, the Sessions court had asked the police to be “mindful” about basing their accusations on video footage which had zoomed in on faces.
After the Investigating Officer (IO) submitted that “our head constable took the video from the spot”, ASJ Singh had asked: “How did you identify the accused? FRS (Facial Recognition System) use kiya ya kaise kiya? (Did you use Facial Recognition Technology or something else?)”
The IO responded that the accused were identified by zooming into their faces, not FRS, as they had no criminal antecedents.
Attempt to murder charge
In its submission to the court regarding the incident, police said that at 12.40 am on January 6, a mob gathered near Badi Masjid in Turkman Gate and raised slogans. Police said they had repeatedly “announced loudly” that an order had been imposed in the area, directing the gathering to disperse and allow officials to carry out their lawful duties.
Story continues below this ad
Following this, police claimed, the crowd resorted to “indiscriminate and continuous heavy stone pelting, aimed at the vital parts of police officials”. As a result, six policemen — SHO Chandni Mahal, Inspector Mahaveer Prasad, Head Constable Jai Singh, Constable Vikram, Constable Ravinder and Additional DCP Sandeep Gupta, Rohini district — sustained injuries.
Police claimed the team was “forced” to fire 208 teargas shells “to control the situation”.
During the course of investigation, police added BNS sections 49 (abetment), 109(1) (attempt to murder) and 190 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) in the case.
ASJ Singh, however, said in his order, “So far as the offence u/s109(1) (attempt to murder) BNS is concerned, though the provision carries serious consequences, the medical material presently available indicates that none of the injuries attributed to the police personnel have been stated to be grievous in nature. While any assault upon public servants performing official duty is unquestionably serious, the record at this stage does not indicate grievous hurt.”
Story continues below this ad
The video circulation claim
The court also commented on the police claim that videos of the clash were allegedly circulated by the accused.
“It has also been brought to the notice of this court that certain video clips and messages relating to the incident were circulated on social media platforms… It is not the prosecution’s case that the applicants were the originators, creators, or authors of the said content, nor that they generated or fabricated the material. The allegation, at its highest, is of forwarding content already in circulation,” the court said.
The court also relied on the ages, clean antecedents, period of incarceration (over a month), and non-requirement of custody while granting the accused persons bail.
The main evidence police had relied on was video footage of the alleged incident, CDRs of the accused persons, chats recovered from their seized mobile phones, and statements of eyewitnesses (police officers at the spot).
