A local court in Noida on Friday dismissed the bail application of Naresh, a tailor who was arrested on May 23 for his alleged involvement in setting vehicles ablaze near Vipul Motors in Sector 63 during an industrial workers' agitation on April 13.
Court's Observations
First Additional Sessions Judge Sunil Kumar 1 ruled that the evidence on record indicated the applicant's prima facie involvement in a serious incident involving gang violence and a breach of law and order in an industrial area. The judge noted, "It cannot be ruled out that granting bail will potentially lead to influencing witnesses and send a negative message to society," finding insufficient grounds for release.
Prosecution's Case
A security guard at Vipul Motors, Neeraj, in his statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, told police that on April 13 around 1:30 pm, a mob of 200–250 people armed with sticks, rods, and stones set fire to vehicles parked outside the company. They entered the premises, vandalized it, burnt the guard room, assaulted workers, and threatened to kill them. After reviewing video footage, Neeraj identified Naresh as being present and involved in the arson.
Defence Arguments
Counsel for the applicant argued that the FIR was filed against unknown persons and Naresh was not named in it. They also flagged a one-day delay in registering the FIR, for which no explanation was offered. According to the defence, Naresh was initially picked up on suspicion under Section 151 CrPC (preventive detention) while passing near the scene. He subsequently travelled to his village after his elderly mother fell ill upon hearing of the incident, and was later apprehended at Ghaziabad railway station, detained for four days, and then falsely implicated.
Charges Filed
Naresh has been charged under BNS sections pertaining to rioting (191(2)), joint liability of unlawful assembly (190), endangering human life (125), mischief by fire or explosive substance (326(G)), house trespass (333), wilful destruction of property (324(4)), voluntarily causing hurt (115(2)), criminal intimidation (351(2)), and common intent (3(5)), along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
The court's decision underscores the seriousness of the incident and the potential risk of witness tampering if bail were granted.
