Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: June 19, 2022 at 14:51 IST
“No one is above the law, and no one can be allowed to engage in violence and riots in the name of religion,” observed a Delhi Court while dismissing an accused’s plea in the Jahangirpuri violence case, seeking an extension of interim bail for the purpose of further education.
Clashes erupted in April in the city’s Jahangirpuri neighbourhood during a Hanuman Jayanti procession.
Additional Sessions Judge Virender Kumar Kharta denied the request of one Neeraj Sarkar, who had been given interim release for 90 days in order to appear in his 12th class examinations. He sought a 90-day extension to prepare for entrance exams for his future career.
Observing that his rights are not absolute and are subject to the rights of others as well as the situation of law and order, the Court stated: “The accused/applicant cannot take the shed of his fundamental rights under Article 25 to 28 of the Constitution of India by indulging in violence and riots.”
While observing that education is a fundamental right of all citizens, the Court stated that the purpose of interim bail had already been fulfilled and that the accused had not produced any material indicating which entrance exam he was required to prepare.
The Court further stated that, while all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, these rights are not absolute and are subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of the Indian Constitution.
The unlawful assembly, of which the accused/applicant was a member, caused damage to public property, resulting in a tense law and order situation in the area, which, as per the reply of 10 situation is still tensed the Court said.
As a result, the Court rejected the Plea, citing the gravity of the offence, the fact that the investigation was still ongoing, and the fact that the purpose of interim bail had been met. The FIR was filed under the sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 332, 323, 427, 436, 307, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 25 of the Arms Act.