This interpretation, at this stage, does not appear to be convincing, court said (Representational)
A Delhi court on Tuesday granted bail to a man in a case related to northeast Delhi riots, saying one of the offences under which he was charged was "debatable".
While granting the relief to Furkan, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said that section 436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was applicable in a case of mischief in respect of destruction of a building, which was ordinarily used as a place of worship, human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, but the vehicle which was allegedly burnt by the riotous mob was parked at a road.
The court further said that besides section 436, rest of the sections against were bailable.
Furkan was arrested under sections 147 and 148 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly) and 436 of IPC.
"From the reading of the complaint itself and the FIR, the vehicle in question, which was burnt by fire, was parked at a road. The same is also depicted in the site plan, where the place of incident is marked as A, which appears to be on the road, though adjacent to a house. Consequently, the applicability of section 436 IPC to the present case is debatable," the court said in its order.
It granted bail to Furkan on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 15,000 with one surety of like amount in the case related to burning of a car by the riotous mob in Jafrabad area.
The court further said that the prosecution's interpretation, stating that section 436 IPC would be attracted since the burning of the vehicle was adjacent to a residential house which could have caught fire, did not appear to be convincing.
"Special Public Prosecutor had argued that section 436 IPC would be attracted since the burning of the vehicle, which was parked, which is adjacent/outside of the residential house, had the propensity to lead to catching of the fire of the nearby adjacent residential house.
"This interpretation, at this stage, does not appear to be convincing. However, this issue is not being dealt with in detail as this is only a stage of bail and not charge," it said.