Tablighi Jamaat- Possible That They Were Picked Up From Different Places & 'Maliciously Prosecuted': Delhi Court Acquits 36 Foreigners

While observing that the plea raised by accused persons is "reasonably probable" that none of them was present at Markaz during the relevant period and they had been picked up from different places so as to maliciously prosecute them, the Saket Court (Delhi) acquitted 36 foreigners facing trial for allegedly flouting COVID guidelines while participating in a Tablighi Jamaat event in Nizamuddin in March this year. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Arun Kumar Garg was hearing the accused who were charged with offences under Sections 188 and 269 IPC, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Section 51 of the Disaster management Act, 2005. The accused hailed from a number of countries, including the US, Russia, UK, France, Sudan, Tunisia, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, United Kingdom, Thailand, Kazakhstan and Indonesia. Regarding the charge under S. 188 IPC The prosecution alleged violation on the part of accused of order u/s 144 Cr.P.C. dated 24.03.2020 promulgated by ACP, Lajpat Nagar SubDivision. It was contended by the Counsel for the accused that the said order was never promulgated within the meaning of Section 188 IPC, nor the accused were aware of the same. Importantly, the PRO was examined by the prosecution, wherein he deposed that he uploaded the order on the website of Delhi Police on 24.03.2020 itself; however, he failed to depose that he had publicized the said order in Press, Radio or Television. No copy of any newspaper, audio/video clip containing contents of the order for publication on Radio or Television was proved on record during the trial. What did the 24.03.2020 Order say? As per clause 2 of the said order, all gatherings (religious or nonreligious) were prohibited in the sub division Lajpat Nagar and as per clause 5 thereof, all individuals suspect or confirmed case of Covid19 were directed to take measures for prevention/treatment by way of home isolation/institutional quarantine and were directed to follow directions of surveillance personnel It was contended by the APP (appearing for the State) that all the accused were part of religious gathering at Markaz in violation of said guidelines and some of them were suspects i.e. having COVID-19 symptoms and some were found to be confirmed cases of COVID-19 upon testing and since they failed to resort to isolation or institutional quarantine, they had disobeyed the directions contained in order of ACP. On the other hand, accused denied their presence at Markaz during the relevant period. Court's Finding The Court, in its order said, "The prosecution has failed to lead any evidence of promulgation of the order u/s 144 Cr.P.C. by ACP, Lajpat Nagar in the sense that not even an iota of evidence about publication thereof so as to bring the same to the notice of persons staying in Markaz has been brought on record." The Court also observed that mere uploading of the order on Delhi Police Website "shall not have the effect of promulgation." Importantly, the Court also noted that the contents of the register produced by the Prosecution did not prove that the accused arrived at Markaz on the dates mentioned against their names or that they were staying at Markaz till 30.03.202031.03.2020. Interestingly, as per the own submission of APP for State, the list couldn't be considered to be recording the correct facts at least qua symptoms. Thus, the Court opined that it wouldn't be safe to treat the said lists as the evidence of presence of accused at Markaz during the relevant period. Lastly, noting that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of any of the accused persons inside the Markaz during 12.03.2020 01.04.2020, the Court said, "There is no question of any violation/disobedience by them of the order u/s 144 Cr.P.C. allegedly promulgated (though promulgation has also not been proved by prosecution) by ACP, Lajpat Nagar." The testimony of SHO found unreliable The SHO, Inspector Mukesh Walia deposed before the Court that the management of Markaz kept him, as well as other authorities in dark about the actual number of persons inside the Markaz till completion of the evacuation exercise. However, contrary to his complaint and the examination in chief, during his cross-examination he stated that during 12.03.202031.03.2020, he had visited inside the Markaz (covering all floors), almost on daily basis and found the accused violating the guidelines. To this, the Court said, "Had it been so, SHO was aware of the actual number of persons gathered at Markaz since beginning and still he failed to take any timely measures to ensure dispersal of the said gatherings despite being aware of the Govt. guidelines. Else, if he was not so aware of the actual or even approximate numbers staying inside Markaz till the last day of evacuation exercise, he in all probability is deposing falsely about...

Tablighi Jamaat- Possible That They Were Picked Up From Different Places & 'Maliciously Prosecuted': Delhi Court Acquits 36 Foreigners

Sparsh Upadhyay

"Prosecution failed to prove presence of the accused persons inside Markaz during 12.03.2020 01.04.2020": Saket Court

Tags

Tablighi Jamaat- Possible That They Were Picked Up From Different Places & 'Maliciously Prosecuted': Delhi Court Acquits 36 Foreigners

Sparsh Upadhyay

"Prosecution failed to prove presence of the accused persons inside Markaz during 12.03.2020­ 01.04.2020": Saket Court

Tags

"Prosecution failed to prove presence of the accused persons inside Markaz during 12.03.2020 01.04.2020": Saket Court