Court rejects bail plea of Delhi riots accused

A Delhi court has dismissed the bail application of a man who was arrested for his alleged involvement in rioting and vandalising a place of worship and burning houses of a particular community during the north-east Delhi riots in February.

Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav noted that in both the cases, the applicant, Johny Singh, has not only been categorically identified by the complainants, but he has also been categorically identified by other eyewitnesses.

The court also remarked that public witnesses in the case are residents of the same locality and “if released on bail at this stage, the possibility of applicant threatening or intimidating them cannot be ruled out”.

Two separate FIRs

“I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant in both the aforesaid matters,” the court said.

Mr. Singh is facing two different FIRs in connection with the riots. In the first case registered at Khajuri Khas police station, he is accused of vandalising, robbery and burning of houses. In the other FIR, he is also named amongst the persons involved in destruction of ‘Fatima Masjid’.

The counsel representing Mr. Singh said his client has been falsely implicated in both cases and that there is no CCTV footage to back the allegations. The counsel argued that Mr. Singh has not been specifically named in both the FIRs and no specific role has been assigned to him.He contended that Mr. Singh was a victim and his house was severely damaged during the riots. There is no CCTV footage available on record in which Mr. Singh is seen rioting in the area, the counsel said.

The special public prosecutor said that videos showing the burning of ‘Fatima Masjid’ have been received and are being analysed.

The SPP said that there are about 12 other cases of similar nature in which FIRs have been registered against Mr. Singh. The SPP also argued that the eyewitnesses who have deposed against Mr. Singh are his immediate neighbours and if released on bail at this stage, then the applicant can threaten them.