[Delhi Riots] Plea Claims Riots Probe Flawed, Demands Court Monitored Probe: Delhi HC Seeks Police Response [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (20th October) directed the Delhi Police to file its reply (within 2 weeks) in connection with a plea filed by the riots accused alleging that riots probe is flawed.The plea filed before the HC seeks "re-investigation/de novo investigation in the case registered at PS Dayalpur and for such investigation to be monitored by this High Court".Notably, the Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna was hearing a petition filed by Shadab Alam, who is an accused in Delhi riots case (registered in February) and has prayed before the Court that "the transfer of the investigation in the case registered at PS Dayalpur be done out of the North-East district, Delhi to another district or to an independent investigating agency for a free and fair inquiry."Plea of the PetitionerThe counsel for the petitioner (Shadab Alam) referred to Para 9 of the Bail order dated 10.04.2020 (discussed in the later part of this article) to say that there is a mystery surrounding the arrest of applicants herein.It was the submission of the counsel for the Petitioner that Accused/Petitioner (Shadab Alam) was picked up from medical shop viz. Samrat Medical Store on 24.02.2020 and only when the application was moved by his counsel before the learned MM qua his illegal detention, he was shown to have been arrested on 28.02.2020.It was alleged that even an application to preserve the CCTV coverage of Samrat Medical Store as also of PS Dayal Pur was declined as also the request or a direction to the Nodal Officer(s) of the mobile companies to produce the call records of the accused persons of the relevant time and also to preserve the CDR.The counsel for the petitioner also referred to the two medical reports/MLCs, one got prepared at the time of arrest on 28.02.2020 by the police and the other one of dated 29.02.2020 when the petitioner was in jail which showed the injuries caused on the back and other parts of the body.It was also stated before the Court that even Mr Anurag Ghai, owner of the said medical store had given an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner was all along with him in the shop on 24.02.2020 and he never participated in the riots etc.Yet, it was submitted before the Bench, this evidence was not taken on record by the investigating agency, hence, it was prayed that the investigation be handed over to some other agency other than the police of PS Dayal Pur.Court's OrderThe Court issued notice. The ASC accepted notice and sought to file a status report.The Court ordered,"As sought, status report, answering all the queries raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, be filed within two weeks from today with an advance copy thereof to the learned counsel for the petitioner through email."The FIR and The Bail Order dated 10.04.2020It may be noted that an FIR No.57/2020 was registered at Police Station Dayal Pur for offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/427 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act) against the Petitioner (Shadab Alam).This FIR is one of the FIRs registered in the the aftermath of riots which took place in the area of Police Station Dayal Pur from the intervening night of 22nd - 24th February, 2020.FIR in this matter (against the Petitioner) was registered after a PCR call was received and the Head Constable on reaching the spot found that the vehicles have been put on fire.The statement of eye witness was recorded only on 28th February, 2020 which is an omnibus statement and does not identify any accused.The Accused/Petitioner's (Shadab Alam) bail application (755/2020) was rejected by Delhi HC on 10/04/2020. The Court had noted in its bail order that,"There is undoubtedly a mystery surrounding the arrest of the petitioner and co-accused which is further fortified by the nature of injuries received by the petitioner as would be investigated in the course of events. It is also strange that even as per the prosecution, the petitioner and co-accused were arrested on the 28th February, 2020 and produced before the Magistrate on the same day and no police custody remand was sought, nor was an application filed for conducting TIP by the other witness who was not present at the time of the arrest. The Statement of this witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also not been produced." (emphasis supplied)Before the Court, the petitioner had also pressed into service the CCTV footage of 24th February, 2020 wherein the petitioner claimed to have been arrested along with one Naved by the police and kept in illegal confinement and only when the application was filed by the co-accused persons alleging illegal detention since 24th February, 2020 the arrest of the petitioner was shown in the present FIR.In the statement of Mohd. Mumtaz of Sanjar Halal Chicken Shop, whose shop had been burnt, the petitioner and co-accused were not named. Statement of the eye witness was also vague.The Court in its bail order had remarked,"No doubt, as stated by the ...

[Delhi Riots] Plea Claims Riots Probe Flawed, Demands Court Monitored Probe: Delhi HC Seeks Police Response [Read Order]

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags