The Delhi High Court recently denied bail to two men, Ankit Chaudhary alias Fauzi and Rishabh Chaudhary, accused in the murder of one Aamin, whose body was discovered on March 3 last year when riots erupted in the national capital.
After reserving the order earlier this month, Justice Mukta Gupta issued it.
DETAILS ABOUT FIR 103/2020
The aforementioned FIR was filed on the basis of a DD entry regarding the lying of an unknown dead body in "Bhagirathi Vihar Nala" on March 3, 2020. The police later discovered one male dead body lying face down in a decomposed state with several injury marks on the head.
During the investigation, the dead body was identified as that of one "Aamin" by his father, Shahbuddin.
The FIR was filed in accordance with sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Given the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the investigation was transferred to SIT-III/Crime Branch on March 28, 2020.
Ankit was formally arrested on April 4, last year, after making a disclosure statement regarding the commission of a crime with other co-accused individuals.
While dismissing Chaudhary's bail application in the aforementioned FIR, the Trial Court, after forming a prima facie opinion that the accused was present at the scene and was, “exhorting the rioters of a particular community who could have killed anybody on his instigation”, and discovered that the accused and others were members of a Whatsapp Group called "Kattar Hindu Etka," where the language used appeared to be "highly communal in nature, clearly promoting disharmony, enmity and feelings of hatred towards the members of a particular community."
The court further stated, “It is common knowledge that the dreary days of 25/26.02.2020 saw parts of North-East Delhi gripped by a communal frenzy, reminiscent of carnage during the days of partition. Soon, the riots spread like wildfire across the smoke-grey skyline of Capital, engulfing new areas and snuffing out more and more innocent lives. The Delhi riots 2020 are a gaping wound in the conscience of a nation aspiring to be a major global power. The allegations against the applicant are extremely grave in nature.”
During the hearing before the High Court, Ankit argued that he had been involved in fourteen FIRs and could not be present at all of them at the same time, and that his location chart and the co-location accused's chart were also at odds, making the presence of two of them together unjustifiable.