Turkman Gate violence: Court grants bail to all 12 accused citing lack of evidence

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Tuesday granted bail to all 12 accused in the Turkman Gate violence case, observing that there was no "clear and unmistakable identification" of the applicants at this stage to justify their continued custodial detention.

The case concerns violence during an anti-encroachment drive near a mosque in the Ramlila Maidan area on the intervening night of January 6-7, after social media rumours about demolition of a mosque opposite Turkman Gate led to a crowd gathering. Police alleged that 150-200 people pelted police and MCD staff with stones and bottles, injuring six policemen, including an SHO.

"At the stage of consideration of bail, this court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence… The court is, however, required to examine whether continued custodial detention is necessary," Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh said.

It granted bail to Mohammad Kashif, Mohammad Kaif, Mohammad Ubaidullah, Mohammad Imran, Mohammad Adnan, Sameer Hussain, Mohammad Naved, Mohammad Athar, Mohammad Areeb, Amir Hamza, Mohammad Aadil and Adnan on a bond of Rs 50,000 each.

Among the bail conditions imposed were that they appear before the trial court on every date of hearing, join investigation when required, not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, keep their mobile phones switched on with location services enabled, and refrain from circulating any content relating to the incident on social media during trial.

The prosecution had argued that the incident was captured through drone surveillance and other video recordings.

However, the court noted that "no specific footage was played before this court during the course of 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".

The judge observed that while other material may form part of the case diary, "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".

The court also referred to the earlier bail granted to co-accused Mohammad Ubedullah, against whom "allegations of similar nature" were levelled. A separate sessions court had granted bail to him on January 24.

It noted that the prosecution had not pointed out any distinguishing feature to show that the role attributed to the present applicants was graver or materially different.

"The principle of parity, therefore, also weighs in their favour," the court said.

On the charge under Section 109(1) (attempt to murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the court said that though the provision carries serious consequences, the medical material presently available indicated that none of the injuries attributed to police personnel had been stated to be grievous in nature.

"Seriousness alone cannot be the only reason to deny bail… Bail cannot be refused merely because the offence alleged carries a severe punishment. Pre-trial detention is not meant to serve as punishment," the court said, adding that determination of intention or knowledge under the provision would be a matter for trial.

The judge noted that the accused were local residents, investigation had substantially progressed and appeared largely documentary and electronic in nature, and that almost all witnesses were police personnel, reducing the possibility of influence.

Balancing the gravity of allegations with the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court said no purpose would be served by keeping the accused behind bars during the pendency of trial.

"Where the alleged victims are police personnel themselves and the investigating agency is drawn from the same establishment, the duty to ensure transparency, objectivity and demonstrable fairness becomes even more imperative," the court said.

It further observed that the use of good-quality body-worn cameras and properly placed CCTV during sensitive operations such as demolition drives would assist in proper identification of offenders and enhance transparency.

The court clarified that its observations were confined to consideration of bail and would not influence the trial on merits.