Delhi [India] (ANI): The Karkardooma Court on Monday dismissed the bail plea of one Shadab Ahmad in connection with the murder of Head Constable Rattan Lal during north-east Delhi violence in February.

Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav, while dismissing the bail plea, observed that the allegations against him are serious in nature and that he may be a flight risk since he is not a resident of Delhi. The court said that at or around the time of the murder of Head Constable Lal, the location of the accused man was at or around the spot.

The court noted that the details received from the prosecution reveal that during the period Ahmad was in constant touch with absconding accused persons namely Upasana, Athar, Tabassum, and Salman Siddiqui.
"A strange thing is also noticeable that at or around the time of (the) murder of Head Constable Rattan Lal, the location of the applicant was at or around the spot of incident and (that) he had received three calls from his counsel representing him in this bail matter. It could be a coincidence, but not without significance. I will refrain from commenting as to whether it was morally or ethically appropriate for the counsel to have represented the applicant in the matter," the court observed in its order.

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality vis-a-vis gravity of (the) offence, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant (Ahmad). The bail application is accordingly dismissed," Additional Sessions Judge Yadav said.

He added the bail applications of co-accused persons namely Mohammed Danish, Mohammed Ibrahim, Badrul Hasan, and Mohammed Arif have already been dismissed by this court vide detailed orders dated June 30, September 19, and September 30 respectively.

"In my considered opinion, we are at "pre-charge stage" in the matter and at this stage, the Court considering the bail matter has to consider the material collected by the investigating agency at its face value and at this stage, "mini-trial" cannot take place. Even the issue of TIP... shall be considered at the stage of the trial," the court said.

Appearing for the Crime Branch of Delhi Police, Special Public Prosecutor (PP) Amit Prasad emphasised it is a peculiar case, wherein the protectors of the life and liberty of the general public were beaten black and blue by the so-called protestors under a large-scale conspiracy. He also emphasised that several murders had taken place at or around Shiv Vihar Tirana as well as near Chand Bagh puliya, not far off from the scene of the crime.

There were several cases of attempt to murder, a law and order situation arose, large-scale arson, looting, and vandalising of public and private property took place and the CCTV cameras were broken down in the incident.

Even playing out a video in the court to elaborately set out the scene of the crime, the special PP very vehemently argued that the presence of the applicant at the scene of the crime was not natural, as he is a resident of Jagatpuri, about 10 km away, and had reached the spot just before the eruption of communal riots in the area.

Even playing out a video in the court to elaborately set out the scene of the crime, the special PP very vehemently argued that the presence of the applicant at the scene of the crime was not natural, as he is a resident of Jagatpuri, about 10 km away, and had reached the spot just before the eruption of communal riots in the area.

The police argued that the applicant used to share the stage with other protestors and instigate the gathering against the government, which ultimately led to violence, thereby resulting in the death of more than 50 people in the North-east district of Delhi, including Head Constable Lal.

Counsels for accused Ahmad argued that since the investigation in the matter is complete and the charge sheet has already been filed, the applicant is no more required for custodial interrogation, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars in the matter. They added that the trial of the case is likely to take a long time and claimed that the applicant has clean past antecedents, on the basis of which he should be granted bail.