The Delhi violence case however has progressed slowly after the series of violent incidents which saw over 50 people dead, 38 Muslims and 15 Hindus, and 700 injured. A committee, formed by the Delhi Minorities Commission in the aftermath of the violence noted that over the next three days in February 2020 mobs spread across the district in Delhi targeting Muslims.

According to a report by The Print, 183 individuals have been acquitted, and 75 have been discharged in 757 registered cases in connection with the violence. The case has seen many twists and turns. In November 2023, a court acquitted 7 people after the prosecution reportedly failed to prove that these people were part of a violent mob. Despite the evidence of video recording, the video recording was not admissible as evidence according to the court because it was examined to check for manipulation. In another instance, a court remarked on the Delhi police’s investigation as a ‘shoddy probe’, and slammed them for manipulating evidence without conducting real investigation. Similarly, in June 2023, The Hindu reported that the Karkardooma Courts had acquitted four Muslim men within a span of nine days the In two separate cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots stated that there was a lack of evidence against them. In October 2023 according to The Hindu, once again the court directed the Police Commissioner to start an inquiry into the conduct of the Investigating Officer (IO) who had drafted the charge sheet the court said was only relying on ‘hearsay evidence.’ Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala stated that, “Regrettably, previous IOs have caused significant delays for this court by submitting investigation reports founded on hearsay evidence.”

In recent news from January last month, the Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad is one of the special prosecutors who represents Delhi Police in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots cases, took back his resignation after he tendered it on December 15, 2023.

A report from 2020 by The Wire reported on the case as the Delhi police tried to prove its claim that the Delhi riots were a conspiracy organised by anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protesters. The Delhi police had reportedly accused several prominent figures including Sitaram Yechury, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), world renowned economist Jayati Ghosh, Delhi University professor and public intellectual Apoorvanand as well as others. The essay also argues that the Delhi police seem to be trying to ‘intensifying target of its critics’ by implying that figures like Yechury and Ghosh were also part of the conspiracy.

Furthermore, in another twist in 2023, as per a report by India Today, speaking at a public event in Bengaluru, Justice S. Muralidhar, the former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, stated that he was confused about the central government’s reaction to his verdict in the Delhi riots case. In February 2020, Justice Muralidhar had presided over three urgent sittings addressing pleas regarding police inaction during the Delhi riots and had issued an order instructing the Delhi Police to ensure the safety and treatment of riot victims after an emergency midnight hearing was called at his home. Furthermore, he had directed the government to provide temporary shelter, treatment, and counselling for those displaced by the riots. However, this proved to be his final say in the matter as reports state that immediately after this order, the government transferred Justice Muralidhar to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, according to India Today.

However, despite the trajectory of the court cases, the lives of the victims remain affected unchangeably by the violence. As part of the government’s formulated scheme to compensate victims of the riots, people who had experience the death of their kin would receive Rs. 10 lakhs.

The government has compensated the kin of the 53 people who lost their lives, according to a report by Frontline Magazine, however people still live in the shadow of the violence. The Frontline reported the story of Shabnam, a 30-year-old resident of Khajuri Khas. Her husband, Mohammad Amjad used to operate a mobile repair shop from their home which was destroyed when a mob set their house on fire. The couple is currently still grappling with the ongoing financial setback and losses they faced after the violence.

Shabnam shared to Frontline, “My husband, even though he never shows it, is very stressed. He has changed as a person since the violence. Our house was burnt, and we had to spend multiple days confined in a cramped room in a nearby house with over 50 people. We had to take extreme measures, like throwing our own children from one terrace to another, just to ensure their safety.”

Several activists and students were arrested in relation to the violence. These accused people are charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and the often termed draconian Unlawful, Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. Currently, six of them have been granted bail, while the remaining continue to endure imprisonment. Several of these originally incarcerated have been granted bail, one of which is one Mohammed Faizan Khan, a mobile seller who was granted bail four months later, and then Safoora Zargar, a student activist from Jamia Millia Islamia was given bail due to her six-month pregnancy. Ishrat Jahan, a former Congress councillor and advocate, was also granted bail by a session’s court. In June 2021, the Delhi High Court granted bail to activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha citing lack of evidence in June 2021. The judgement in Asif Tanha’s case was a lead judgement, path-breaking in the manner in which it examined the “offences” under the UAPA.

Some of the names, who continue to be incarcerated as undertrial detainees in the case include Khalid Saifi, a 42-year-old member of the Delhi-based United Against Hate organisation, Umar Khalid a student leader and activist, Sharjeel Imam, a PhD scholar from Bihar, Meeran Haider, a student leader associated within the Rashtriya Janata Dal Youth Wing, and student activist Gulfisha Fatima. Along with these there are Tasleem Ahmed, an education consultant, Athar Khan, a former employee of a Delhi-based telecom company.

Meenakshi Ganguly, who is the South Asia director of Human Rights Watch has said in connection to the case, “Indian authorities have been targeting activists for harassment and arrest instead of impartially investigating allegations that BJP leaders incited violence and police officials were complicit in attacks.”

During a gathering in 2022, UN Special Rapporteur of Human Rights Defenders (HRD), Mary Lawlor too voiced concerns on the arrest, and has stated that the Indian government is trying to criminalise human rights defenders by charging them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

According to Amnesty International, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is frequently used by the government as a means to put aside human rights and suppress dissent.

According to Al Jazeera, the law was originally introduced in 2008 by the Congress party and there onwards it underwent several changes in 2019 under the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. These changes give the authorities more power to label people and not just organisations as terrorists. While the UAPA has been used by many Indian governments, its usage has exponentially risen in recent years.

In 2020, the conviction rate under the UAPA stood at 2% as government data shows that out of the 5,922 people arrested under the law from 2016 to 2019, only 132 resulted in convictions. Thus, critics argue that the law functions more as an easy tool of harassment, allowing the government to intimidate, imprison, and target individuals critical of its policies. The deliberate slow duration in the investigative processes and the highly strict bail provisions within the UAPA contribute to lengthened detention, and provide a welcome environment for unlawful confinement and often, even torture.

Related:

Brinda Karat on the Third Anniversary of Delhi Riots- “Cannot Abandon Struggle for Justice”

Did Nand Kishore Gurjar admit to role in North East Delhi riots?

Hate speeches amplified by television, incited targeted violence against Muslims: CCR Report, Feb ‘20 Delhi riots

The post Delhi violence 2020: 4 years on, the shadow of violence lives on appeared first on SabrangIndia.

New Delhi: The victims of riots in North East Delhi came together on the third anniversary of horrific violence that claimed 53 lives at Qaumi Ekta Bhawan in Brij Puri to demand speedy justice. In a public meeting organised by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M) to remember the victims, the family members on Sunday emphasised that the riots were not about tyranny by followers of one religion over other but injustice by ruling leaders who used violence to further their political interests.

Aaghaz who lost his newlywed son Ashfaq in riots said that the struggle for justice must continue if it is to ensure that no violence occurs again in the area. He said, “the victims have gathered here only to say that justice is yet to be delivered. The struggle for justice must continue. We will get it one day. History is a testimony to it that no ruler would be permanent. Just look at the religious scriptures of any religion and you would find the fate of unjust rulers. The one who perpetrates injustice is a tyrant and it does not matter which religion he follows. If Mughals could go, if British could go then present tyrants would be dusted too.”

Mallika, who lost her husband said that her partner could have been alive, had the police intervened in the matter. “My husband was hiding in the room. I had hidden my children inside the bed. When the rioters came, they started beating my husband. When they got to know about my children, they started beating them with iron rods. Later, my husband was brought down in the street and thrown away in the fire. I went to the Policemen to ask for help but they mocked me! My family was finished. After three years, I only seek justice,” she told NewsClick.

The members of the left party maintain that there had been a slew of challenges ranging from rehabilitation and compensation to perusal of justice. After rehabilitation, the struggle for just compensation has begun. We still do not know the status of all cases related to murders. Further, the challenging part has been to enable the survivors to earn with dignity and begin a new life. The space of Qaumi Ekta Bhawan was created with the intention to strengthen the bond among communities.

Ashok Tiwari, who specialises in pedagogical training told NewsClick, “we need to stand up with the communities in a sense that ensure that they are empowered economically and socially. We are right now focusing to impart training for self-employment. When we interacted with community members, we found that there are learning gaps in students studying in school. So, we started coaching and computer classes. We are also looking at other avenues where children could express themselves creatively such as writing and acting workshops too. It’s a new beginning for people and us too.”

Sehba Farooqi, Secretary, of All India Democratic Women Association (AIDWA) Delhi emphasised that the struggle for justice could not be fought by Muslims alone. “It is not a question of Hindu-Muslims unity. It’s a political question. The attacks which happened here were not attacks on Muslims alone. They were attacks on every individual who wish to see India as a secular republic. It was an attack on the constitution. Some people say that Muslims alone endured injustices and they will have to fight alone but if we see the country, it is being pushed in one specific direction. There are attacks on Dalits and Tribals too. People here are saying that Brinda Karat was the first to visit them after the riots. It’s not a new thing for us. She went to Jahangirpuri too when bulldozers were demolishing the homes and shops of innocent people. We could have issued the statements at the luxury of home. We went there to emphasise that the struggle to save the country will be fought on the streets. So, Muslims too will have to join other segments of society for a united struggle too,” Farooqi said.

Addressing the gathering of riot victims, Brinda Karat, Politburo Member, Communist Party of India (Marxist) said that the objective of bringing together riot victims is not to refresh their grief and trauma but to show that they are fighting the hardships and look after their families with unprecedented resolution. She said, “the victims have narrated their ordeal about life without their loved ones. With this meeting, we wanted to show the world that even though our sisters and brothers are living in hardships, they are demanding their right to life. They are saying to rioters that you tried to finish their families but we are alive and demanding justice. One of the victims recounted that when his husband was killed and she went to the police station, she was persuaded by police officials not to file the complaint. In today’s newspaper, we are learning that among 700 cases related to riots, only 10% of cases could see any progress and nobody has been persecuted in murder cases. We cannot abandon this struggle for justice. I urge you to please come up with case files, documents and information for us in the next month and we will initiate this legal struggle by keeping all people together. We must say that what was done to us will not be forgotten. If we want our generations to never face this violence again, we must fight this struggle and get real culprits punished.”

Karat said that it is a pity that government could not fix a universal mechanism for compensation of riot victims and treats different classes without a humanitarian approach. “I also wish to speak about compensation. No compensation can bring back a dead person but I fail to understand the standard of relief for people. The son of Ram Sugarath Paswan was a minor and he was given only half compensation. How inhuman is it? Ankit and Ratan Lal were murdered in a gruesome manner and their families were rightly compensated Rs 1 crore each. I want to ask this government which yardstick it is using to compensate somebody Rs 1 crore and somebody Rs 5 Lakh and discriminate against people. There are victims who lost their eyesight in acid attacks. If the compensation could not help them live with dignity, then it should be reconsidered. So, there should be a renewed for justice collectively.”

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Brinda Karat on the Third Anniversary of Delhi Riots- “Cannot Abandon Struggle for Justice” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Delhi Court on Wednesday rejected the bail pleas of Gulfisha Fatima and Tasleem Ahmed in connection with the case related to alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the communal violence that broke out in North East Delhi in February 2020.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat dismissed Fatima’s bail plea, saying in view of the charge sheet and the accompanying documents, the allegations against the accused appear to be “prima facie true” and therefore, no relief can be given on account of the embargo under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Similarly, the judge also dismissed the bail application of Ahmed, saying he was actively involved along with Fatima and others in the protest, before and at the time of the riots in North East Delhi, and the allegations against him also are prima facie true.

Last year, a Delhi court had allowed Ahmed to undergo surgery in government hospital after his lawyer Mahmood Pracha told the court that he was in risk of becoming seriously infected.

Fatima and Ahmed, along with several other activists, students and lawyers, have been booked under the anti-terror law, UAPA, in the infamous FIR 59/2020. The case alleges a larger conspiracy behind the riots and claims made by police within it have been challenged by reports of the Delhi Minorities Commission among others.

Besides the accused, activist Dr. Umar Khalid, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) students’ union member Khalid Saifi, Pinjra Tod activists Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain and several others have also been booked under the stringent law in the case.

Ishrat Jahan, a former Congress councillor, who was also one of the accused in the case, finally walked out of Mandoli jail on Wednesday evening after she was granted bail on Monday, March 14. Meanwhile, orders on the bail pleas of three other accused in the same case, Dr. Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Saleem Khan, have been deferred to March 21 and 22, 2022.

In the order concerning Fatima’s bail plea, the court noted that the statements of the protected witnesses showed “sufficient incriminating material” against the accused, who was “not only involved in the entire protest before the period of riots at Seelampur and Jafrabad in North East Delhi, but was also actively guiding it.”

It further recorded that Fatima was allegedly engaged in mass mobilisation, created two WhatsApp groups and was also present in northeast Delhi at the time of the riots.

“In fact, as per the witnesses, she was the one who started the blockade and prompted the attack on police personnel and others with weapons like dande, lal mirchi powder and others in the Jafrabad area, which had a cascading effect, leading to the riots,” the court noted.

The order may be read here: 

In ascribing blame for the riots to the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protesters, the Delhi Police have also been blamed for a discriminatory sense of investigation and justice, because they turned a blind eye to BJP leaders like Kapil Sharma and Ragini Tiwari who were at the time caught on video blatantly threatening violence.

Citizens for Justice and Peace had sustained a campaign against Kapil Mishra for which hate had been spewed against the organisation by Mishra.

So Testa Setalvad is starting a campaign against Hindu Ecosystem

Entire India Hate Gang is coming together against one small initiative

Why ? https://t.co/fNWAI38a9m

— Kapil Mishra (@KapilMishra_IND) November 20, 2020

In fact, there was much done by several organisations including CJP and SabrangIndia to show that the Delhi 2020 targeted violence was in fact incited using social media. Instead of investigating these aspects in a non-partisan manner, the Delhi police have repeated their assertion that the riots were “premeditated” to take place when then US president Donald Trump was in Delhi. 

The FIR 59/2020 contains stringent charges including Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the UAPA, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The accused are also charged under various offences mentioned under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In September last year, main charge sheet was filed against Pinjara Tod members and JNU students Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha and student activist Gulfisha Fatima.

Others who were charge-sheeted included former Congress Councilor Ishrat Jahan, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and and Shifa-Ur-Rehman, suspended AAP Councilor Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Salim Malik, Mohd Salim Khan and Athar Khan.

Thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet was filed in November against former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a case re in a case related to the alleged larger conspiracy in the communal violence in North East Delhi in February.

Related:

State is deriving sadistic pleasure by extending custody period, its torture: Ishrat Jahan 
2020 List of Honour: 10 Anti-CAA-NPR-NRC protesters vilified in Delhi 

The post Delhi Violence: Court dismisses Gulfisha Fatima, Tasleem Ahmed’s bail pleas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Delhi district court has expressed its concern over considerable delay in the trial in the North East Delhi violence of February 2020, involving serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code. It has directed the Delhi Police to supply all documents relied upon as evidence  to the accused people, and file reply on only those applications against which they have a reservation.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat suggested, “Whenever an application is moved under CrPC section 207 (supply of copy of police report and other documents to the accused), it is better that the prosecution supplies all documents and files a reply for only those documents on which you have reservation for whatever reasons, then this can be argued. Let us please limit ourselves to only those documents against which you have a reservation.”

He further said, “I have received 4 to 5 applications under section 207 of CrPC…This will take years, it is very difficult for all counsels.”

Advocate Rizwan Siddique, appearing for Tahir Hussain told the court, “It will be difficult for all of us, one person will file a 207 application, then the prosecution will file a reply, then another application….this will take years.”

In the previous hearing on September 10, involving FIR 59 of 2020, SabrangIndia had reported that Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha had moved an application under section 207 of the CrPC seeking copies of electronic evidence way back in April, but the Delhi Police had not responded to it. Advocate Sowjhanya Shankaran, representing Asif, also argued that the prosecution has relied on this material to frame charges against him in the chargesheet, and that it is the duty of the State to provide for the same. 

In yesterday’s hearing, advocate Adit S. Pujari, appearing for Devangana and Natasha explained, “The prosecution has relied on several phones and the data contained in several phones. If I (Devangana) am asking for Rizwan’s client’s (Tahir Hussain) phone, that should be given to me, because the allegation states that he is in conspiracy with me, so I can look at his phone and prove that I am not in conspiracy with him”.

Rizwan Siddique intervened and submitted, “That’s the point, the conspiracy allegation against me (Tahir Hussain) is that I met Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi and conspired, so I have the right to access all documents related to Umar and Saifi.”

Judge Rawat said, “Let all documents be supplied”. Advocate Rizwan said, “This is a conspiracy trial, there should not be a reservation on a section 207 application. This is not a normal trial, we are all connected to each other. This is the only trial in the country where the prosecution has an issue on application 207.”

Special Public Prosecutor, Amit Prasad, objected to the aforesaid submission. However, in order to expedite the trial, the Court said that the Prosecution will supply documents to all accused instead of filing replies and will file reply only with regards to those documents which cannot be given to the accused with reasons to be given as to why the same cannot be done.

Concerns raised by inmates

Tasleem Ahmed’s lawyer told the court that they have moved an application for his surgery which is scheduled in Ambedkar hospital on October 7. In addition to this, Tasleem told the court that he has already moved five applications but has not received the soft or hard copy of the charge sheet in jail.

Tasleem also alleged that he has been attacked twice in jail. Judge Rawat said that he cannot direct his transfer from one jail to the other, but can take care of his security. “I will pass an order,” he said.

Lawyer-activist Ishrat Jahan requested the court to direct the jail authorities to provide her with a set of headphones for communicating with her family members and lawyers. She said that this falls under privileged (confidential) communication during her mulaqats, and she is entitled to some privacy.

Student activist Athar Khan said, “Since April, I have been requesting for some books, including the Quran. When I approached the jail authorities, they said that I can read books available in the jail library, but the law does not require me to read the Quran mandatorily. A speed post was also sent to me by my family on August 27, I have not been provided with the parcel.” The court went on to record his submissions and said that he will look into his grievances. 

Mohd. Saleem Khan told the court, “I have been in jail for the last 19 months. I am innocent. My entire family is disturbed. My children’s education has been affected. I have gone into depression. I don’t have the money to hire an expensive lawyer. My son has stopped studying, I need to get my daughter admitted to the 10^th grade. Please do something, let us out. Who will we ask for help? I didn’t even know what section 302 is (murder charges). After getting arrested I found out that I have been charged with murder. I don’t feel like eating. I am alive just because my children are outside. I request you to read the letter I have written to you.”

The court accepted his request and directed the letter to be sent to him. The court has also directed the accused parties who have not filed an application under section 207 of the CrPC, to file it within 2 weeks. The court has posted the matter for hearing on October 8.

Related:

Production of electronic evidence delayed: Student activists to Delhi Court, 2020 Violence

Delhi Police can’t be trusted to investigate media leak: Asif Tanha’s counsel

Sharjeel Imam tried to create complete anarchy: Gov’t tells Delhi court

Umar Khalid files fresh bail plea, opposes State’s “dilatory tactics”

The post This will take years: Court expresses concern over delay in trial in the Delhi violence case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delhi High Court has rejected the bail petition of Shahrukh Pathan whose video wielding a gun and running towards Head constable Deepak Dahiya went viral during the Delhi violence of February 2020. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said that the pictures and videos of the incident have shaken the conscience of the court and stated that whether or not Pathan intended to kill Dahiya, it is hard to believe that he had no knowledge that his act may harm anyone present at the spot.

It was stated by Head Constable Deepak Dahiya that on February 24, 2020, he was with his team between Jaffrabad Metro Station and Maujpur Chowk when one person (the petitioner), leading the agitated crowd and brandishing pistol in his hand, came running towards him and fired 3-4 rounds of shots towards other people. He aimed the pistol at the constable’s head who dodged the bullet but Pathan still kept shooting at the public. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged under sections 147/148/149/186/216/307/353 of the IPC and certain sections of the Arms Act.

He was detained on March 3, 2020, and has been in custody since. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out the delay of over 50 hours in filing the FIR. He further submitted that he has made a scapegoat/ poster boy of the riots and complainant has become the symbol of bravery before the media person. On the charge of attempt to murder invoked against him, he stated that he did not shoot at the constable but shot on the side and had no intention of killing him. He further contended that irrespective of how many criminal cases are pending against an accused, it cannot form the basis to refuse the bail.

The prosecutor opposed the bail stating that there are video clips as well as a few photographs showing petitioner heading the group of mobs, holding his pistol in hand and walking towards the complainant and also firing the pistol shots. Further Forensic reports stated that the cartridges seized from the spot have been fired from the weapon recovered from Pathan’s house.

At the outset the court mentioned that some serious allegations were made by the petitioner in the petition against the Government of India, Ministers and Judge of this Court. the court deprecated this and stated “the Bar is suggested to not make such claims until and unless supported with factual and material evidence in a particular case.”

The court stated that the “role attributed to the petitioner is not confined to participation in the mob of rioters but of heading the large crowd, holding a pistol in hand and releasing open fire shots. The video clipping and pictures played before this Court have shaken the conscience of this Court how petitioner could take law and order in his hands.” The court stated that whether or not he had the intention to kill the Constable, it is hard to believe that he had no knowledge that his act may harm anyone present at the spot.

The court denied him bail while observing that the petitioner has not denied his involvement in the incident and the picture speaks volumes about his involvement. The court said that keeping in mind the gravity of offence, it was not inclined to grant bail and dismissed the petition accordingly.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Sketchy material against Umar Khalid, Delhi court grants bail

Delhi HC reserves order in Jamia student Asif Tanha’s bail plea

Delhi HC vacates stay on trial of Delhi violence conspiracy case

The post Picture speaks volumes of his involvement: Delhi HC rejects Shahrukh Pathan’s bail plea appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Delhi Court has questioned Delhi Police about the improper maintenance of investigation file in the case of alleged burning of Madina Masjid during the North East Delhi violence of February 2020.

“I have gone through the said file as well as the case diaries. I have today signed all the case diaries. The case diaries have not been maintained in terms of section 172 Cr.PC. The bound volume, as mandated by Cr.PC has not been maintained,” the Additional Sessions Judge (Karkardooma court) Vinod Yadav observed.

The court further noted that statements of witnesses, “probably been recorded after 17.03.2021, i.e. the last date of hearing” were recorded in digital form and did not bear digital signatures of the IO but only physical signatures. The court stated that, as a result, it was not possible to ascertain as to whether the same were recorded on the date mentioned against the signatures of IO.

The court said it would refrain from commenting on the investigation at this stage but asked SHO, PS Karawal Nagar and IO of the case to be present for the next hearing, on April 7 and also directed that original record of FIR nos.55/20 and 72/20, PS Karawal Nagar as well as the original daily diary entries be produced in court.

Background

The court had, in February, directed Delhi police to file FIR in the alleged incident of burning and desecreation of Madina mosque in Shiv Vihar during the Delhi riots of February 2020 after an application was filed by Advocate MR Shamshad under section 156(3) of CrPC.

According to the complaint, around 20 to 25 people had gathered on February 25, 2020 at about 6 PM in the Madina Masjid Gali armed with sticks, acid, rods and petrol bottles. Thereafter, the accused persons started breaking the mosque and destroyed the premises by setting it on fire, by causing an explosion of two LPG cylinders. It was further stated that on February 26, 2020, one fo the accused had climbed on top of the Masjid and chanted Jai Shree Ram and hoisted a saffron flag over the mosque, reported LiveLaw.

At the previous hearing, the court had also pulled up Delhi Police for clubbing a complaint about alleged burning of a man’s house during the riots with another complaint which was against the complainant; thus arresting him in the same matter making him both a complainant and an accused.

The complete order may be read here: 

Related:

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

The post Delhi Court questions improper maintenance of case files in Madina Masjid probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

Related:

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

The post Delhi violence: Court questions credibility of police witness, grants bail to accused appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On February 1, a Delhi court had ordered police to register an FIR into the attack on Madina Masjid in North East Delhi by armed rioters, and to carry out a complete investigation. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayuri Singh, had directed the Station House Officer of Karawal Nagar police station to register an FIR in the Madina Masjid burning case. The court’s view was that a cognisable offence was made out in the case demanding a thorough investigation.

On March 17, a Delhi court pulled the Delhi Police up for “arresting the complainant” in a case of arson and vandalism at the same mosque. The observations were made by Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav, who called the arrest absurd and directed DCP (North­ East) to file a status report on the investigation carried out so far. According to a report in The Indian Express, the judge also summoned SHO (Karawal Nagar) on March 25 with the case diaries.

According to the complaint before the court, as reported by IE, about 20-25 people had gathered in the Madina Masjid Gali on February 25, 2020 allegedly armed with lathis, sticks, acid, rods and petrol bottles. The accused then allegedly broke into the mosque and started destroying everything. The complaint reads, “Some of them took inside the premises of the mosque two LPG cylinders and put them on fire resulting in explosion and huge fire inside the mosque. On the morning of February 26, 2020 one of the accused climbed on top of the Madina Masjid and started chanting ‘Jai Shree Ram’ and then went on to hoisting the saffron flag over the Masjid which resulted in a tensed environment.”

According to the news report the the ACMM said, “As per the allegations contained in the complaint regarding the incident of fire etc. in the Madina mosque, Shiv Vihar, cognisable offence is clearly made out and a proper investigation is required as it cannot be said that all the evidences are within the reach of the complainant, even though he has named some of the persons allegedly involved in the offence.”

The Delhi Police had challenged the order before a Sessions Court. ASJ Yadav, in his order, wrote, “It is really strange that the complaint with regard to burning of house of respondent No. 1 was clubbed with the complaint of one Naresh Chand… and later on the respondent No.1 was arrested in the same matter, meaning thereby that he is not only complainant in the matter, but also an accused, which is an apparent absurdity.” 

According to news reports Haji Hasim Ali had also filed a complaint regarding arson and loot at his home in Shiv Vihar. However, Delhi Police clubbed his complaint with another man’s, who reported arson at his shop, in which no accused was named. Police then registered an FIR and arrested Ali on the basis of CCTV footage, reported IE. According to the report police had claimed that Ali was “clearly seen in the footage instigating the mob”. Ali was later granted bail by a court, but Police also clubbed the complaint regarding the mosque, of which Ali is the caretaker, with these FIRs.

It was reported that Ali’s advocate, M R Shamshad, then filed an application in court for police to register a separate FIR into mosque attack, since clubbing it with another would make it “irrelevant”. The court had said “it would be appropriate that an FIR is registered in this matter (the mosque attack) as well…”

Related:

Why do investigations into the Delhi riots appear to be a conspiracy in itself?

Is Delhi Police hiding key information, documents of riot cases?

Delhi court rejects Natasha Narwal’s bail plea

Delhi court denies bail to Devangana Kalita in UAPA case

The post Delhi violence: Court slams police for arresting complainant in mosque arson case  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to four accused- Liyakat Ali, Arshad Qayyum, Gulfam and Irshad Ahmad in the North East Delhi violence of last year in February.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed, “Prima facie I am of the opinion that petitioners cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer time and the veracity of allegations levelled against them can be tested during trial.”

All four accused persons have been charged-sheeted for offences under sections 109 (abetment to crime), 147 (rioting) 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon) 149 (unlawful assembly) 153A (promoting enmity between groups) 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) 392 (robbery) 395 (punishment for dacoity) 427 (mischief) 436 (mischief by fire and explosive substance), 505 (inciting people) 120B (criminal conspiracy) 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code and punishment for using arms under the Arms Act.

Justice Kait noted that although the communal clash broke out on February 24, the FIR in question was registered only on February 27. The court noted another slip up and said, “The testimony of eyewitnesses, namely, Pradeep Verma, Surender Singh and Rajbir Singh Yadav under Section 161 Cr.PC. has been recorded on 14.03.2020 (March 14) and none of them neither made any PCR call nor any DD entry was made.”

Further, the Bench pulled up the police constable for not calling a PCR van and make a DD entry. ‘The statement of another eyewitness Constable Sangram was recorded on 23.04.2020 and this Court fails to understand as to why despite having a good understanding of law and order, a police official who is witness to riots would neither call PCR nor will make a DD entry in this regard”, the Bench said.

The Single-judge Bench noted that the call detail record of the prime accused Tahir Hussain, does not match with those of the four petitioners. There was also no evidence against the petitioners “such like CCTV footage, video clip or photo to connect the petitioners with the incident in question and nothing incriminating has been recovered from their possession.”

It, thus, ordered the release of the accused on bail forthwith upon their furnishing of personal bond of Rs.20,000 each, with one surety each in the like amount.

The judgment may be read here: 

Related:

Revisiting Northeast Delhi a year after the February 2020 pogrom

Delhi HC seeks response in plea seeking quashing of DMC’s report on Delhi riots

Delhi Riots: Bail denied as accused carrying palta in aggressive posture

Delhi court asks Police to respond to plea seeking FIR against Kapil Mishra

The post Delhi HC grants bail to 4 accused in the 2020 violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.