The Delhi High Court granted bail to Mohd. Bilal, who had been detained in a riots case since June 2020, after finding that the videography used by the police to keep an eye on the protesters did not show his presence.
Bilal was granted bail after submitting a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two surety bonds of the same amount to Justice Mukta Gupta.
The case concerned FIR 138/2020, which was filed under sections 147, 148, 149, 435, 186, 353 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, roughly 100-150 people armed with rods, lathis, stones, and weapons gathered and began shouting anti-government slogans in protest of the CAA. The duty police officers allegedly warned the members of the unlawful assembly, informing them that Sec. 144 Cr.P.C. had been promulgated in the area.
The mob, on the other hand, set fire to the police officers on duty, pelted them with stones, and fired at them. Following that, Mudassir, a member of the riotous mob, was shot and later proclaimed dead.
The dead died of “shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries to the head caused by a weapon projectile.”
The prosecution claimed that Bilal was seen breaking CCTV cameras near the scene on February 24, 2020, and that the State relied on witness Babu Dule’s allegation about the displacement of the cameras as having witnessed the occurrence.
Constable Sunder’s statement, in which he claimed to have identified Bilal based on CCTV footage, was also used.
“The murdered Mudassir can be seen standing with the mob in the footage, as well as falling down after receiving the projectile. However, the petitioner is not seen in the 35-second video recording clip that focuses on the crowd.
According to the Court.
“One cannot explain why, while videography was taking place on the scene, just 35 seconds of videography was captured when Mudassir was hurt, and no other videography was taken before to or after that, because the same would have captured all of the persons in the area. However, as previously stated, the videography used by the police to keep an eye on the protesters does not show the presence of the petitioner.”