New Delhi: The right to protest and state differences of opinion have “fundamental stature” in democracy, said the Delhi High Court on Friday, guarantees five charges, including a woman, in the case of Riots Delhi northeast.
They were accused of being part of a horde that attacked the police, resulting in injury to the police chief, who later died of his injuries.
In five separate but similar verdicts, HC provided a guarantee to accuse Mohd Arif, Shadab Ahmad, Furkan, Suvaleen and Tabassum, who faced prosecution of the killing of the Pollable Head Lal.
It should be noted that the right to protest and express differences of opinion is the right to occupy fundamental stature in democratic government, and therefore, the only protest act should not be employed as a weapon to justify the detention of those who exercise this, “Subramonium Prasad judge was observed.
While showing that all the defendants had been behind the bar for the past 12-18 months, the court underlined that “it was the constitutional task of the court to ensure that there was no arbitrary personal liberty seizure in the face of the strength of the state.
Power.
“Furkan, Arif, Ahmad, Suvleen and Tabassum were arrested last year in April, March, May and October, and has been behind the bar since then.
Against police claims that the fifth was conspiring to kill and attack police officers as part From the hordes, the court said apparent charges of murder in the crowd “cannot be done on the basis of unclear evidence and public allegations Every member of the Assembly who violates the law inhabit the general intention that violates the law.
There is no possibility of assuming an umbrella of guilt in the name of each accused by the court.
“Opposing a guarantee request, the police accused on February 24, 2020, on the order of protest organizers, the crowd brought various weapons such as” Lathis “, baseball bats, iron stems and stones held on the main Wazirabad road and refused to pay attention to the orders of senior officers and police officers Others.
But the HC pointed to evidence in each case and noted that in the case of Ahmad and Tabassum, it only became one of the organizers of protests and related to other participants was not enough to keep them in prison for a period that was not defined at this stage.
Regarding the role of women who are Accused, Tabassum, HC recorded no video recordings that showed him around the location of the protest, and the opinion that some women wearing Burqa had caught attacking police officials in the video did not have weight at this point because he could not be identified in the clip.
While guaranteeing to the 18 year old Suvaleen, The court said it was not wise to keep it behind bars for a period that was not defined at this stage and his continuous detention with a hardened criminal would only harm.