Delhi Court Grants Bail to All 12 Accused in Turkman Gate Stone-Pelting Case
A Delhi court on Tuesday granted bail to all 12 individuals accused in the Turkman Gate stone-pelting incident, delivering a significant ruling that underscores the principle that personal liberty cannot be eclipsed by the severity of allegations alone. The court firmly observed that "bail cannot be refused merely because the offence alleged carries a severe punishment," particularly when the prosecution failed to prima facie establish specific individual roles in the case.
Court's Rationale for Granting Bail
Judge Bhupinder Singh of the Delhi court released the accused—Mohd. Kaif, Kashif, Ubaidullah, Imran, Adnan, Sameer Hussain, Naved, Athar, Areeb, Aadil, Amir Hamza, and Adnan—on bonds of Rs 50,000 each. The decision was influenced by several key factors, including the ages of the accused, their clean antecedents, the period of incarceration they had already endured, and the court's determination that further custody was unnecessary for the investigation.
In addressing the charge of attempt to murder under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the court acknowledged that while this provision carries serious legal consequences, the medical evidence presented did not indicate any grievous injuries to police personnel. This finding significantly weakened the prosecution's claim that there was a genuine threat to life, thereby undermining the basis for continued detention.
Evidence and Prosecution's Claims Scrutinized
The prosecution had relied on drone surveillance and video recordings from what it described as a "pre-planned and sensitive demolition drive." However, the court noted a critical absence of specific footage that could clearly and unmistakably identify any of the accused actively participating in stone pelting. No such evidence was played before the court to prima facie demonstrate individual involvement.
Furthermore, allegations of "damage to public property" were neither quantified nor individually attributed to the accused, as highlighted in the court's observations. This lack of concrete evidence linking specific acts to particular individuals played a pivotal role in the bail decision.
Emphasis on Transparency and Fairness
Judge Singh emphasized that in cases where police personnel are the alleged victims, "transparency and fairness must assume greater importance." The court stressed that the investigating agency must place clear and unambiguous material on record to rule out "even an iota of perceived bias." This call for accountability was a central theme in the ruling.
The defense team, led by advocates including Asad Mirza, Supantha Sinha, and Salman Bukhsh, argued that the footage cited by the prosecution was largely unclear—a concern with which the court concurred. In response, the judge recommended the implementation of body-worn cameras and proper CCTV coverage during such operations, especially where resistance is foreseeable, to ensure accurate identification and enhance accountability.
Rejection of Continued Custody and Parity Principle
The court ultimately found that the evidence in the case was largely documentary and electronic in nature, with witnesses mostly being official personnel. Based on this assessment, it rejected the plea for continued custody of the accused. Additionally, the court invoked the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Mohammad Ubedullah had been granted bail on January 24, and there were no distinguishing features in the roles of the present applicants that warranted different treatment.
In its concluding remarks, the court reiterated a fundamental legal tenet: "Pre-trial detention is not meant to serve as punishment." The judge affirmed that the seriousness of an accusation alone cannot justify incarceration, reinforcing the protection of personal liberty as a cornerstone of the judicial process.
