Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Karkardooma Court had dismissed the bail plea of a woman accused in the murder case of Head Constable Rattan Lal during the North-East Delhi riots.
The accused woman had argued that she was falsely implicated in the matter and she was nowhere at the crime scene on the date and time of the said offense.
Constable Sunil Kumar registered an FIR, the violent protesters had started pelting stones, and a few of them had started beating people and police personnel. In the said chaos, the protesters had also attacked DCP Shahdara, ACP Gokulpuri, and HC Rattan Lal due to which they sustained grievous injuries and started bleeding.
The petitioner contended that the charge sheet filed by the investigating agency is based on conjectures, pre-conceived and pre-decided conclusions as the facts leading to the death of HC Rattan Lal have not been investigated properly. There was no electronic evidence against the applicant, either in the form of any CCTV footage or her CDR location, which could show her presence at the scene of the crime on the date of the incident.
The petitioner has also contended that she was admitting to have participated in the protest, however, it reiterated that protesting against any legislation is the fundamental right of the accused and the same cannot be snatched away from her as it is her legitimate belief and perception that Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) are against a particular religion. It was argued that the courts have deprecated the “pre-trial detention” and “bail is the rule and jail is an exception.”
The Court noted the Call Detail Records of the mobile of the applicant which reveals that she was in constant touch with several co-accused persons. The CDRs showed that the applicant was near the scene and had made 15 calls to one of the co-accused. The court also observed the snapshots of the spot filed on record, where the applicant is clearly visible. She was also identified by the independent public witness in their statements under section 164 Cr. P.C.
The Court rejected the bail application after considering the facts, circumstances, and gravity of the offense. The Court also clarified that as the case is at the “pre-charge stage” anything stated should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case.
86540
103860
630
114
59824