Turkman Gate case: 12 get bail as court flags absence of 'clear and unmistakable identification'

According to the police, a crowd of around 150 to 200 people gathered and allegedly hurled stones and bottles at police personnel and staff of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, leaving six officers, including a Station House Officer, injured.

• Delhi court grants bail to 12 men in Turkman Gate violence case
• Prosecution couldn't clearly ID accused in video evidence yet
• Accused must attend hearings, cooperate, and avoid evidence tampering

Did our AI summary help?

A Delhi sessions court on Tuesday ordered the release on bail of 12 men arrested in connection with the violence that broke out near Turkman Gate during an anti-encroachment operation in early January, noting that the prosecution had not, at this stage, shown any “clear and unmistakable identification” of the accused in the video material cited.

Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh, while allowing the applications, underlined that the court’s task at the bail stage is limited.

“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,” the judge said.

The case stems from unrest on the intervening night of January 6 and 7 in the Ramlila Maidan vicinity, after rumours circulated on social media about the demolition of a mosque opposite Turkman Gate.

According to the police, a crowd of around 150 to 200 people gathered and allegedly hurled stones and bottles at police personnel and staff of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, leaving six officers, including a Station House Officer, injured.

Granting relief 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, the court directed each to furnish a bond of Rs 50,000.

Among the conditions imposed were that they attend every hearing before the trial court, cooperate with investigators as and when required, refrain from tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses, keep their mobile phones active with location services enabled, and avoid posting or circulating any material related to the episode on social media during the pendency of the trial.

The prosecution had maintained that the incident was recorded through drone surveillance and other video footage. However, the court observed 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”.

While acknowledging that additional material may form part of the case diary, the judge remarked that “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 grant of bail to co-accused Mohammad Ubedullah on January 24 by another sessions court, noting that the allegations against him were of a similar character.

It recorded that the prosecution had not highlighted any distinguishing circumstance to suggest that the role attributed to the present applicants was more serious or substantially different. “The principle of parity, therefore, also weighs in their favour,” the court said.

Addressing the invocation of Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the judge observed that although the provision entails serious consequences, the medical records currently on file did not indicate that the injuries sustained by police personnel were grievous.

“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 order stated, adding that the question of intention or knowledge under the provision would be examined during trial.

The court took note of the fact that the accused are residents of the locality and that the probe has largely progressed, with much of the evidence appearing documentary or electronic in nature.

It further observed that most of the listed witnesses are police officials, which, in its view, reduced the likelihood of influence.

Balancing the allegations with the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21, the judge concluded that their continued incarceration pending trial was unwarranted.

“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 also remarked that the use of high-quality body-worn cameras and properly positioned CCTV systems during sensitive operations such as demolition drives would aid in accurate identification and promote transparency.

The court clarified that its observations were confined to the question of bail and would not affect the adjudication of the case on merits during trial.