Delhi Riots: Court Deprecates 'Wild Allegations' Made By Lawyer Mehmood Pracha Against SPP Amit Prasad Based On 'Private Investigation'
A Delhi Court recently deprecated wild and unsubstantiated allegations made by Advocate Mehmood Pracha, who represents one of the accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, based on a private investigation against Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad that he took money in cash from the Delhi Police.Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said that he does not want to meddle into...
A Delhi Court recently deprecated wild and unsubstantiated allegations made by Advocate Mehmood Pracha, who represents one of the accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, based on a private investigation against Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad that he took money in cash from the Delhi Police.
Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said that he does not want to meddle into the allegations made by Pracha against the SPP, who may, take action at his own end, if he so desires.
“However, the court deprecates the wild allegations without substantiation made against the ld. Prosecutor and particularly when it did not concern the merits of the case,” the court said.
Pracha is appearing for accused Tasleem Ahmed in FIR 59 of 2020 which was registered by Delhi Police's Special Cell under Indian Penal Code and UAPA.
While Ahmed's bail application was being heard in August, Pracha made personal allegations against the prosecutor. He alleged that he conducted a private investigation on the SPP and had found out that Prasad, in an underhand manner, had taken money in cash from the Delhi Police.
On the other hand, the SPP vehemently opposed the allegations and took a stand that in view of the gravity of the allegations, he cannot continue as Special Public Prosecutor in the case.
He also said that Pracha may place the material on record to substantiate his grave allegations on his integrity, alongwith the affidavit of the private investigator.
Moreover, the SPP also raised an issue of conflict of interest stating that Pracha has been mentioned by a protected witness in his statement and thus, he cannot represent Ahmed as he can be cited as a witness by the prosecution or by any of the accused persons in the case.
On the aspect of making personal allegations against the prosecutor, the court said that whenever a counsel for the accused and a Prosecutor appear in a case, they should represent their client instead of resorting to making wild allegations.
The court further noted that the accused Tasleem Ahmed, despite being aware of the allegations of conflict of the interest, insisted that he should be represented by Pracha.
“Regarding this issue whether it is a conflict of interest and is not allowed by Bar Council of Delhi Rules, the same is left open for the prosecutor or for the Bar Council of Delhi to consider or to initiate an action, if deemed fit,” the court said.
It added that the proceedings must continue as it impacts or hampers the case of all other accused persons and even the case of the prosecution.
“Hence, put up for arguments on the bail application of accused Tasleem Ahmed on 07.12.2023. Copy of this order be sent to Bar Council of Delhi,” the court said.
FIR 59 of 2020 been registered under various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The accused in the case are Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan and Natasha Narwal.