News Analysis India

Tag: delhi riots case

  • 2020 Delhi riots: Accused goes on religious yatra without court’s permission, court fines him Rs 5,000 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: A court hearing a case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots has imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on an accused for causing the adjournment of proceedings with his “deliberate” action of going on a pilgrimage without permission.

    Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala was hearing a case registered by Gokalpuri police station against six accused including Sonu who was at the stage of presenting prosecution evidence.

    The judge noted that Sonu, enlarged on bail, was absent.

    Sonu’s counsel moved an application seeking exemption from appearance, saying the accused did not appear as he had gone for the Amarnath yatra.

    “Today’s date was announced to all the accused well in advance.

    Accused Sonu despite having knowledge of today’s date, opted to go out of Delhi that too without seeking any such permission,” ASJ Pramachala said in an order passed on Tuesday.

    He said the accused was absent despite having knowledge of the court proceedings, and without making any arrangements for them to be conducted in his absence.

    Underlining that it was a pre-planned journey and not an exigency, the judge said, “In these circumstances, I am not satisfied with the reasons for the absence of the accused Sonu, which is also causing an adjournment in the case today.”

    The court imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on the accused for causing adjournment with his “deliberate action.”

    It also issued a show cause notice to him as to why his bail should not be cancelled for breaching the terms of his personal bond.

    The matter has been posted for further proceedings on Thursday.

    NEW DELHI: A court hearing a case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots has imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on an accused for causing the adjournment of proceedings with his “deliberate” action of going on a pilgrimage without permission.

    Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala was hearing a case registered by Gokalpuri police station against six accused including Sonu who was at the stage of presenting prosecution evidence.

    The judge noted that Sonu, enlarged on bail, was absent.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    Sonu’s counsel moved an application seeking exemption from appearance, saying the accused did not appear as he had gone for the Amarnath yatra.

    “Today’s date was announced to all the accused well in advance.

    Accused Sonu despite having knowledge of today’s date, opted to go out of Delhi that too without seeking any such permission,” ASJ Pramachala said in an order passed on Tuesday.

    He said the accused was absent despite having knowledge of the court proceedings, and without making any arrangements for them to be conducted in his absence.

    Underlining that it was a pre-planned journey and not an exigency, the judge said, “In these circumstances, I am not satisfied with the reasons for the absence of the accused Sonu, which is also causing an adjournment in the case today.”

    The court imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on the accused for causing adjournment with his “deliberate action.”

    It also issued a show cause notice to him as to why his bail should not be cancelled for breaching the terms of his personal bond.

    The matter has been posted for further proceedings on Thursday.

  • Delhi riots: Failure to conduct proper probe will torment sentinels of democracy, says court

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: A court here on Thursday came down heavily on the Delhi Police for its probe into a 2020 riots case, saying that its failure to conduct a proper investigation will “torment” the sentinels of democracy when history will look back at the worst communal riots in the national capital since partition.

    The court, which discharged former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain’s brother Shah Alam and two others in a case related to alleged loot and vandalization of a shop during the riots in February 2020 at Delhi’s Chand Bagh area, also called the probe “callous and indolent” which gives an impression that a constable was planted as a witness.

    Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav called the case a colossal wastage of the hard-earned money of taxpayers in which the police merely tried to pull the wool over the court’s eyes and nothing else.

    The court noted that there was no CCTV footage of the incident to confirm the presence of the accused at the spot, no independent eye witness, and no evidence regarding the criminal conspiracy.

    I am not able to restrain myself from observing that when history will look back at the worst communal riots since partition in Delhi, it is failure of investigating agency to conduct proper investigation by using latest scientific methods will surely torment the sentinels of democracy, the judge said.

    He further pointed out that the case seemed to have been solved merely by filing the charge sheet without any real effort to trace out the eye witnesses, real accused persons, and technical evidence.

    Furthermore, the court said that the probe lacked sensitivity and skillfulness.

    This court cannot permit such cases to meander mindlessly in the corridors of judicial system, sweeping away precious judicial time of this court when the same is open and shut case, the judge observed.

    The court said that after investigating this matter for so long, the police presented only five witnesses — the victim, Duty Officer, formal witness, investigating officer (IO), and a constable, who had identified the three accused.

    The judge said that the delay on the part of the constable to report the incident gives an impression that he has been planted in the case.

    He said that no real or effective investigation has been carried out and the police have just tried to show the case as solved merely by recording the statement of the constable, that too at a belated stage.

    The evidence brought on record by the investigating agency in the case in hand miserably falls short for framing charges against the accused persons.

    Accordingly, all the three accused persons are discharged from the case, the court added.

    Alam’s brother Tahir Hussain was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case and is currently in judicial custody.

    He is also an accused in several other cases.

  • Umar Khalid calls Delhi riots conspiracy case ‘cooked up’, points to contradictions

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the north-east Delhi riots conspiracy case, told a Delhi Court on Monday that there were various contradictions in the police’s claims and called it a “cooked up” case.

    Khalid, along with several others, has been booked under the stringent anti-terror law UAPA.

    They are accused of being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 violence, which had left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

    He has sought bail in the case.

    Trideep Pais, Khalid’s lawyer, told Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat that the FIR was cooked up and unnecessary, and was used selectively to target and frame them.

    The counsel pointed to two contradictions in Delhi Police’s claims.

    ​ALSO READ | Anti-CAA protests: Sharjeel Imam denies inciting violence, says cannot be hammered with sedition

    Firstly, he showed the court a 21-minute video clip of Khalid’s speech in Maharashtra, which the prosecution had allegedly labelled inflammatory.

    The lawyer, pursuant to showing the video, apprised the court that his client did not give any call for violence through the speech and in fact gave a message of unity to the people.

    “A message of unity based on Gandhi ji was given by Umar Khalid that day. It was termed as terror. Content is not seditious. He is talking about democratic power. He referred to Gandhi,” Pais added.

    Secondly, he argued that as per the police case, Khalid conspired with other accused on January 8 to cause riots during former US President Donald Trump’s visit, however, the news about his visit was announced only in February.

    ALSO READ | Both factions of Hurriyat Conference likely to be banned under UAPA

    “These are the kind of lies they are peddling. This is a joke. This FIR is a cooked-up theory. Is it that easy to prosecute people? Do you have no responsibility as a prosecution?” Pais said.

    Delhi Police had recently said that the bail plea has no merit and that it will demonstrate the prima facie case against him before the court by referring to the charge sheet filed in the case.

    In April, the former JNU student was granted bail in one of the riot cases.

    The court while granting him bail noted that he was not physically present at the scene of the crime on the date of the incident.

    Besides him, JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and several others have also been booked under the stringent law in the case.

  • Reading down UAPA may have pan-India ramifications, says SC upholding bail of student-activists in riots case

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: Reading down of anti-terror law is an important issue and may have pan-India ramifications, the Supreme Court said on Friday and sought responses from three student activists granted bail by the Delhi High Court in north-east Delhi riots case.

    The high court judgements will “not to be treated as precedent by any Court” to give similar reliefs, the apex court said while hearing Delhi Police appeal against the bail.

    A vacation bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian made it clear however that the bails granted to these student activists will not be affected for the time-being.

    Taking note of Solicitor Generak Tushar Mehta’s submission that the entire anti-terror law, UAPA, has been turned upside down by the Delhi High Court while granting bail to these activists, the bench said what is troubling it was that 100 pages of the verdict have been rendered while granting bail and judgement discussed the entire law.

    The High Court had on June 15 granted bail to JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita and Jamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha saying that in an anxiety to suppress dissent the State has blurred the line between right to protest and terrorist activity and if such a mindset gains traction, it would be a “sad day for democracy”.

    The high court, in three separate judgments, set aside the trial court’s orders denying bail to student activists and allowed their appeals by admitting them to regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each along with two sureties of the like amount.

  • Line between right to protest, terrorist activity seems to be getting blurred: Delhi HC

    Less than 10 per cent of the total production of Covaxin to date has been supplied to private hospitals, while most of the remaining quantity was supplied to state and central government, it said.