New Delhi
A Delhi court has granted bail to former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar in a twin murder case related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, saying that his name was first taken with certainty by the complainant after a long gap of seven years from the date of the incident.
Kumar will, however, continue to remain in the prison as he is serving jail term for the remainder of his life in another case of anti-Sikh riots.
The case relates to murder of a father-son duo on November 1, 1984, allegedly by an unruly mob of thousands of people being led by Kumar. The complainant, the deceased’s wife and mother, had alleged that Kumar instigated and abetted the unlawful crowd, which in turn, burnt the father-son duo alive.
The complaint had also alleged that the mob had not only killed the two persons but had also damaged, destroyed and looted their household articles and other property, burnt their house and also inflicted severe injuries on the person of their family members and relatives residing in their house.
Special CBI judge MK Nagpal, while granting bail to Kumar, said that according to the records, there are various and different versions of the incident as narrated by the complainant and the other two victims of the case. It said that during the initial period of around one year, there was even no specific statement or claim made by any of them regarding their being eye-witnesses of the alleged incident.
{{/usCountry}}Special CBI judge MK Nagpal, while granting bail to Kumar, said that according to the records, there are various and different versions of the incident as narrated by the complainant and the other two victims of the case. It said that during the initial period of around one year, there was even no specific statement or claim made by any of them regarding their being eye-witnesses of the alleged incident.
{{/usCountry}}The court also said that out of the other two victims, the statement of one, who is daughter of the complainant, has been recorded for the first time only after a period of around 32 years and though statement of the other victim, who is niece of the complainant, was recorded after around 7-8 years from the date of incident, but even in that statement no claim was made by her regarding witnessing the killing or identity of the accused.
The judge agreed to the submissions of Kumar’s counsel that his client was arrested as he was already running in custody in another case and it was nowhere required for the purposes of investigation of the present case or otherwise.
The court also agreed to Kumar’s contention that the charge sheet against him could also have been filed without formally arresting him in this case as by the time he was arrested in the case, investigation of the case already stood completed.
“Again, there was a huge gap of more than 5 years even between the date when investigation was assigned to SIT and the date when the accused has been formally arrested in the case,” the court said in a 29-page order.
The judge noted that the alleged offences in this case were committed in the year 1984 and a long period of more than 37 years has passed since then. It said that during this period, various cases were registered or re-registered against Kumar in different parts of Delhi and this case happens to be one of these cases and also the only case in which the accused has been arrested.
It also said that the apprehensions by the prosecution that the accused may try to tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses have to be reasonable and not vague or mere apprehensions or those based on flimsy grounds.
The FIR in this case was registered on September 9, 1985, on the basis of an affidavit given by the complainant. During the investigation, the police had filed a final report before a magistrate court and the case was directed to be sent as untraced in 1994 after it held that evidence collected by the IO so far was not sufficient to initiate prosecution against any particular person.