[Delhi Riots] Delhi Court Casts Serious Doubt On Credibility Of Police Witnesses, Grants Bail To One On Ground Of Parity

Nupur Thapliyal

26 March 2021 1:59 PM GMT

  • [Delhi Riots] Delhi Court Casts Serious Doubt On Credibility Of Police Witnesses, Grants Bail To One On Ground Of Parity

    A Delhi Court on Tuesday granted bail to one Amit Goswami in relation to the north east Delhi riots on the ground of parity while casting "serious doubt" on the credibility of police witnesses in the case. Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav granted relief to Amit Goswami on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety of like amount in the case of vandalizing, looting and putting on fire...

    A Delhi Court on Tuesday granted bail to one Amit Goswami in relation to the north east Delhi riots on the ground of parity while casting "serious doubt" on the credibility of police witnesses in the case.

    Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav granted relief to Amit Goswami on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety of like amount in the case of vandalizing, looting and putting on fire a shop in Bhajanpura main market area by allegedly being a part of a "riotous mob" on 25th February 2020.

    FIR was registered on the complaint of Mohd. Aslam under sec. 147, 148, 149, 457, 435, 436, 454 and 380 of the IPC in Bhajanpura Police Station. The two co accused namely Mukesh and Sunil Sharma were granted bail by the Court vide orders dated 18.09.2020 and 30.09.2020 respectively.

    According to the prosecution, it was submitted by Special Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Gaur that the applicant was a member of the riotous mob which indulged in looting, arsoning, assaulting the complainant and indulged in "anti-national activities". Moreover, it was submitted that while the applicant was actively involved in the riots, he also "chanted slogans against the other community". According to the SPP, the 2 Beat Constables present in the area had identified the applicant to be a member of the riotous mob at the time and date of the incident.

    While the Court observed that the SPP fairly admitted that the applicant was "neither specifically named by complainant in FIR" nor there was any CCTV footage/video clip of the incident available in the matter, the judge went ahead to question the conduct of the two beat constables as to why they waited till 17th April 2020 i.e. date of recording of their statements under sec. 161 of CrPC when they had categorically seen and identified the applicant.

    "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. Even no PCR call was made by the said witnesses on the date of incident. This casts a serious doubt on the credibility of said police witnesses." The Court observed at the outset.

    The Court therefore granted bail to the applicant subject to the condition that he 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.

    Click Here To Read Order


    Next Story