Mere Presence at the Scene Doesn’t Prove Common Intent: Delhi HC Grants Bail in 2020 Delhi Riots Case

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Mohd. Wasim, an accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots case, reiterating the principle that "bail is a rule, jail is an exception." Justice Chandra Dhari Singh emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial infringes upon the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, noting that Wasim had been in custody since September 28, 2020, with trial proceedings still pending at the charge-framing stage.
The case against Wasim arises from an FIR registered on February 26, 2020, linked to the North-East Delhi communal riots that erupted in protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Wasim was accused of participating in a mob that allegedly attacked police officers, resulting in the death of Head Constable Ratan Lal and injuries to other officials. The police implicated Wasim in the incident, asserting that he had thrown petrol bombs at the officers and absconded to avoid arrest, leading to his being declared a proclaimed offender.
Wasim’s counsel argued that his presence in the vicinity was due to his concern for his brother and that CCTV footage showed him unarmed. They also cited parity, as 20 of the 28 accused in the case had already been granted bail. Additionally, Wasim's counsel emphasized his prolonged detention, lack of criminal antecedents, and significant family hardships, including the loss of his young daughter during his incarceration.
The prosecution contended that Wasim’s alleged participation in violent, anti-national activities endangered public order and that his release could result in witness tampering. They further emphasized the grave nature of the charges, particularly Section 302 (murder) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Singh, while acknowledging the serious nature of the charges, stated that bail considerations must prioritize the individual’s liberty when prolonged detention lacks a conclusive trial. The court reiterated that “mere presence at the scene does not establish common criminal intent” without concrete evidence of active participation.
"An accused is not to be deprived of personal liberty unnecessarily… Bail is a rule, and jail is an exception," the court held, aligning with precedents such as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI.
In view of Wasim’s non-involvement in prior criminal activities and his familial obligations, the court concluded that his continued detention served no additional purpose. He was granted bail on conditions, including surrendering his passport, reporting regularly to the investigating officer, and refraining from contacting witnesses.
The court directed Wasim’s release on a bond of ₹50,000 with one surety, stressing that the decision on bail is independent of his guilt or innocence, which will be determined at trial.

Date of Decision: November 4, 2024
Mohd. Wasim @ Bablu vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr