Delhi violence: Court questions credibility of police witness, grants bail to accused

The court questioned why the police witnesses waited two months before naming the accused, instead of taking immediate action when the incident happened.

delhi violence

A Delhi court has granted bail to an accused in the Delhi riots case on grounds of parity. Amit Goswami was accused of vandalising, looting and putting on fire a shop in Bhajanpura main market area by allegedly being a part of a riotous mob.

The two other accused in the case, Mukesh and Sunil Sharma were granted bail in September 2020. The counsel for the applicant argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case and argued that he neither been specifically named in the FIR nor any specific role has been assigned to him in the matter. He further argued that there is no CCTV footage of the incident, and no Test Identification Parade (TIP) has been conducted. He also termed Constable Yogesh and Constable Bhagirath as “planted witnesses”, as had they witnessed the incident, then why they didn’t report the matter at the Police Station.

The Public Prosecutor argued that the applicant was actively involved in riots and chanting slogans against the other community and was a member of the riotous mob which engaged in looting, arsoning, assaulting the complainant and other people and anti-national activities.

Additional Sessions Judge (Karkardooma court) Vinod Yadav questioned the Prosecutor as to whether the role assigned to applicant in the matter is different from the role attributed to two co-accused persons, but it was conceded that the role assigned is same and the material being relied upon in the matter is also the same.

The court observed that the applicant has neither been specifically named in the FIR nor there is any CCTV footage/video clip of the incident. The court further stated that the applicant was arrested merely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by him. The court further accepted the applicant’s contention and it observed that the identification of the applicant by the constables is “hardly of any consequence, as this Court is not able to comprehend as to why said Beat Constables waited till 17.04.2020, i.e the date of recording of their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the IO to name the applicant, when they had categorically seen and identified the applicant indulging in riots on the date of incident, i.e 25.02.2020”

The court further observed that no PCR call was made by the said witnesses on the date of incident and questioned, “Being police officials, what stopped them from reporting the matter then and there in the PS or to bring the same in the knowledge of higher police officers”. The court stated that this casts a serious doubt on the credibility of said police witnesses.

The court stated that the applicant also deserves bail on grounds of parity as other co-accused were out on bail and thus granted bail on the applicant furnishing a Personal Bond for the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court. The court also imposed conditions that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness in any manner, he shall maintain peace and harmony in the locality and that he shall appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing to attend the proceedings in accordance with the terms of Bail Bond, which would be executed by him; he shall furnish his mobile number to SHO, PS Bhajanpura upon his release from the jail and will ensure the same to be in working condition and further he shall also get installed “Arogya Setu App” in his mobile phone.

The complete order may be read here



Delhi Court rejects plea by Mehmood Pracha against raids at his office

Delhi violence accused thrashes Muslim man, forces him to chant anti Pakistan slogans

Delhi HC vacates stay on trial of Delhi violence conspiracy case

CCTV was not working: Delhi Police to HC in Faizan death case



Related Articles