The Delhi High Court on Friday said that bystanders cannot be “picked up” for being part of a mob involved in clashes and stone-throwing during a demolition drive near a mosque and a graveyard at Turkman Gate in the national capital on January 7, PTI reported.
Justice Prateek Jalan made the verbal observation while hearing a plea for anticipatory bail filed by Sajid Iqbal, who has been accused of instigating the crowd.
The petitioner’s lawyer had argued that Iqbal was not part of the mob that threw stones and claimed that he was returning from a relative’s house when he was pushed into the crowd, PTI reported.
A trial court had earlier dismissed Iqbal’s anticipatory bail plea on January 21, noting that the investigation was at a preliminary stage. It had observed that a video appeared to show him gathering the crowd and that there was no apparent reason for him to be present at the site or to remove barricades.
The clashes had broken out when the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was carrying out the demolition on land adjoining the Faiz Elahi mosque and a nearby graveyard in January.
The mosque was not damaged during the drive, PTI had quoted an unidentified official of the civic body as claiming at the time.
However, unidentified police officials had told the news agency that the situation escalated after social media posts claimed that the mosque was being demolished, leading to a large crowd gathering at the site.
They claimed that around 150 to 200 persons were involved in the violence, and six police personnel, including the local station house officer, were injured.
On Friday, the High Court asked the Delhi Police to file a status report, along with video evidence, detailing the specific role allegedly played by Iqbal in the clashes, PTI reported.
The Delhi Police submitted Iqbal had removed barricades and instigated the crowd and added that it was probing a “deeper conspiracy” behind the violence.
After being shown a video of the incident, Jalan asked the police to place the footage on record with proper timestamps, observing that even if the petitioner was present at the site, his specific role would have to be assessed.
“If the video material shows he is instigating, you are right,” PTI quoted the court as verbally observing. “If he is simply passing by, you are not right.. If you are picking up everyone in that area, that will not be permitted.”
The matter has been listed for further hearing next week.
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!