Delhi court dismisses plea alleging illegal detention in Janakpuri pit death

A Delhi court dismissed Rajesh Prajapati's plea of illegal detention in the death of Kamal Dhyani, citing lack of evidence and merit in the claims.

NEW DELHI

The pit in Janakpuri. (HT Archive)

A Delhi court on Wednesday dismissed a plea alleging illegal detention moved by Rajesh Prajapati, the subcontractor accused in the death of 25-year-old Kamal Dhyani, who fell into an unguarded pit in Janakpuri, after observing that the claim was devoid of any merit.

Judicial magistrate first class Harjot Singh Aujla of Dwarka courts said the allegation was not supported by any cogent material or prima facie evidence on behalf of the accused.

The court said, “On the contrary, the record, particularly the CDR, suggests otherwise. The court is not expected to embark upon a fishing and roving enquiry in the absence of foundational material, especially when the allegations do not find support from the record”.

The case stems from the death of Kamal Dhyani, who fell into a 4.5-metre-deep excavation pit around 12.15am on February 6 while returning home in Palam Colony. Police said he remained trapped for nearly eight hours despite several people, including Prajapati, being aware of the incident but failing to alert authorities or attempt a rescue.

Prajapati, currently in judicial custody, alleged his arrest was illegal and unconstitutional. In his plea, he alleged he was illegally apprehended on February 6 and was produced before the magistrate only two days later, on February 8. Under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), police are required to produce an arrested person before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time.

The magistrate said that the accused’s reliance on alleged media reports regarding the date or time of arrest was “wholly misplaced” and that such material could not be treated as admissible evidence in the present case.

The order read, “The material places on record, including the CCTV footage from the front gate, arrest memo, GD entries and the CDR record, cumulatively establishes that the accused was not illegally detained and his apprehension and subsequent arrest were effected on February 7 in the normal course of investigation”.

The magistrate’s order further stated that non-installation of CCTV cameras at the police station’s rear side was an administrative aspect it could not oversee.

The court previously directed the station house officer (SHO) of Janakpuri police station to place on record relevant CCTV footage to ascertain when Prajapati was apprehended and brought to the station. The court had noted that when directed to produce the back gate’s footage, the IO first submitted that there was no CCTV camera at the rear of the police station, and later said the cameras were not working. It went on to issue notice to the deputy commissioner of police (west) to furnish a detailed report explaining its stance.

Dhyani is represented by advocates Pooja Sharma and Aastha Chaturvedi.