22 Jun 2020 3:38 PM GMT
The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice in a plea moved by Delhi Police seeking cancellation of bail granted to school owner Faizal Farooq -owner of Rajadhani and Victoria Public Schools - who was arrested for alleged involvement in Delhi riots. While issuing notice, the Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait noted that if the accused has not been released, he shall remain...
The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice in a plea moved by Delhi Police seeking cancellation of bail granted to school owner Faizal Farooq -owner of Rajadhani and Victoria Public Schools - who was arrested for alleged involvement in Delhi riots.
While issuing notice, the Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait noted that if the accused has not been released, he shall remain in custody till further orders.
During the proceedings, there arose a controversy as to the appearance of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, after Rahul Mehtra, Standing Counsel (Crime) for Delhi Government objected to the same. This led to the Solicitor General withdrawing his name from the petition "out of disgust".
The matter was renotified at 2.30 PM to resolve the issue as to appearance.
At 2.30 PM, ASG Aman Lekhi appeared and Amit Chadha, APP appeared in place of Rahul Mehra, and made a joint request for adjournment to resolve the issue.
Posting the matter to June 23 at joint request, the bench ordered notice to the respondent, and directed :
"Till further order, if the respondent/accused, pursuant to order dated 20.06.2020 is still in custody, he shall not be released".
On June 20, ASJ Karkardooma had granted bail to Faizal Farooq who was arrested for allegedly participating in the Delhi Riots, after noting that his own properties were damaged during the said riots.
While granting bail, the court had rejected Delhi Police's argument which stated that the applicant has terror links as he was constantly being in touch with the members of Popular Front of India, Pinjra Tod Group and members of Jamia Millia Islamia.
The court further had noted that there's nothing on record to suggest, prima facie, that the applicant was even present at the scene of occurrence when the riots were taking place.
The court had also taken note of the fact that the FIR on the complaints raised by the applicant against the damages caused to the schools owned by him were not registered by the police till March 05.
It was further observed by the court that the CCTV footage doesn't show the presence of the applicant at the scene of occurrence at the time when the riots were taking place.
While holding that the so called offending materials recovered from the terrace of the applicant's school after 16 days of the incident cannot be attributed to the applicant, the court had observed that the applicant had himself made as many as 6 calls on 24.02.2020 to the police about damage to his school but the IO did not collect the PCR forms of the said calls.
Click here to download Order