+
  • HOME»
  • North-East Delhi Violence: Court grants bail to the accused in 4 cases

North-East Delhi Violence: Court grants bail to the accused in 4 cases

The accused in four cases related to the riots in North East Delhi has been granted bail by the Karkardooma Court in Delhi. These cases are related to the rioting that occurred in the vicinity of Police Station Shastri Park in February 2020. Surendra Nath Yadav was granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya […]

The accused in four cases related to the riots in North East Delhi has been granted bail by the Karkardooma Court in Delhi. These cases are related to the rioting that occurred in the vicinity of Police Station Shastri Park in February 2020. Surendra Nath Yadav was granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala on Tuesday. Based on equality and a change in the circumstances, the court granted the accused bail. The court ordered him to provide one surety bond in the same amount as well as a bail bond worth Rs 10,000.

The court said that it is an admitted situation that the investigation qua the applicant is complete now and that a chargesheet has been filed qua the applicant before the court. It is also a matter of record that co-accused persons are already on bail in aforesaid cases, it added.

“Apart from the applicant, some other co-accused persons are also reportedly seen in the videos,” the court observed.
“Thus, the role attributed to the applicant is not more serious than the co-accused persons, who are already on bail. Hence, there is a change in the circumstances after the rejection of the previous bail application of the applicant, in these cases. On the ground of parity itself, I find the applicant to be entitled to bail,” ASJ Pramachala said in the order on December 5.

The accused’s counsel, Advocate Anu Prakash, stated that in these cases, he had withdrawn the application before the Delhi High Court since, at that point, the applicant had already been charged with a crime. Additionally, he contended that the reason this court denied the prior application in these cases was that the investigation was still ongoing at the time.

Advertisement