New Delhi: Delhi riots case: Gulfisha Fatima did not exercise independent command, resource control over multiple protest sites, says SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday said activist Gulfisha Fatima, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, did not exercise independent command, resource control, or strategic oversight over multiple protest sites during the agitation against the Citizenship Act.
While granting bail to Fatima, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria said she stands at different footing as compared to the alleged masterminds Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
“The allegation that Gulfisha Fatima mobilised local women and coordinated protest-site logistics, though relevant to the prosecution’s case, does not presently disclose that she exercised independent command, resource control, or strategic oversight over multiple protest sites.
“The prosecution itself asserts that directions were conveyed to her by others higher in the asserted hierarchy. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the level of attributed agency and control does not justify continued incarceration once the investigative purpose stands substantially fulfilled,” the bench said.
The apex court said apprehension that Fatima’s release may lead to interference with witnesses or revival of the alleged operational network is considerably weakened by the absence of material suggesting that she retains any autonomous capacity to mobilise persons or resources in the current circumstances.
“It is undisputed that the structures relied upon by the prosecution both formal or informal no longer exist in their asserted form, and the appellant’s present ability to exert influence is neither pleaded with specificity nor supported by contemporaneous material.
“The imposition of stringent conditions can sufficiently safeguard against any residual risk,” it said.
The top court said the gravity of the incidents, though serious, cannot eclipse the constitutional demand for individualised assessment of necessity in pre-trial detention.
“Prolonged incarceration premised solely on the seriousness of allegations, absent a proximate and continuing nexus between the appellant and present threats to the administration of justice, would amount to a punitive measure inconsistent with settled principles.
“In view of her alleged executory role and absence of demonstrable present capacity to influence proceedings, continued custody does not meet the threshold of necessity,” the bench said.
The apex court said Fatima has remained in custody for a substantial period, and there is no material to indicate that her release would pose an irremediable risk that cannot be addressed by restrictive conditions.
“The law does not envisage incarceration as a measure of deterrence at the pre-trial stage, particularly where the individual concerned is a woman with no prior criminal antecedents and whose alleged actions stem from a ground-level facilitating role.
Source: Read full coverage
