Libertatem Magazine

Bail Granted To Cab Driver Accused in Delhi Riots: Delhi High Court

Contents of this Page

The Delhi riots which caused injury to more than 50 people and the death of a head constable was a major incident that threatened the existing communal harmony and peace that the country proudly proclaims. One accused in the case was Danish, a cab driver who was charged for being a conspirator of the violence. Danish was arrested on March 11th 2020. The said matter is with respect to a bail plea for Danish.


The counsel for the defendants opened their arguments stating that

“Petitioner is a resident of Loni, Ghaziabad. However, on 23rd February and 24th February and at the time of incident, his location was at Chandbagh at the place of incident as per call detail records. Petitioner was actively involved in riots and was identified by the witnesses Ct. Sunil and Ct. Gyan of PS Dayalpur.”

S V Raju, who is the Additional Solicitor General also stated that the accused was also in possession of weapons including guns, bombs etc.

The counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Salman Khurshid along with Advocates Bilal Anwar Khan and Anshu Kapoor contented the lack of proper evidence when stating out that,

“An alleged statement by the petitioner is false, fabricated and illegal. It is factually incorrect that petitioner deposed any information to the police officials. He is educated only till class X. He was made to sign some plain papers which later found out to be disclosure statements attributed to him.”


The order while granting bail stated that

“These statements are made on the same date, i.e.,11.03.2020, including the disclosure statement of petitioner during the police custody. It is on 11.03.2020 Muhammad Yunus, Muhammad Ayyub and petitioner were arrested as per arrest memos. Besides that, one accused, namely, Furqan who is a resident of Gali No.5, Chandbagh and he names Danish as neighbour which is contrary for the reason that the petitioner is not a resident of Chandbagh.” While looking into the discrepancies in the police findings the Court stated that “It is much later, after a span of 12 days, in their supplementary statement dated 10.03.2020, the name of petitioner appears and the petitioner was initially arrested by Nandnagri police officials on 10.03.2020 from there he was taken to Crime Branch office, Chanakyapuri. Moreover, there are three public witnesses in this case and none of them has named the petitioner formally in their respective statements.”

The single-judge bench of Justice Suresh Kait also observed the lack of evidence when stating that

Undisputedly, there is no CCTV footage or viral video to implicate the present petitioner.” 

The Court also observed, that since the charge sheet was filed, the trail would start, but since there would be a delay in it was the right of the accused to be given bail. A bond sum of Rs 20,00 and one-month surety was imposed as bail conditions. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgement from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also contribute blog, articles, story tip, judgment and many more and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author