Delhi court raps police over poor northeast riots probe

The court said the police blatantly disregarded an order passed by the same court on January 21 this year, directing a clearer investigation into the case

NEW DELHI

The court sought to bring the matter to the notice of the Delhi Police commissioner for remedial action, and sought a report on its next hearing, scheduled for November 14. (Shutterstock)

A Delhi court pulled up the police for improper probe into a case of arson and vandalism of properties that took place during the northeast Delhi riots of 2020, observing that the charge sheet was “mired in confusion” and a lack of clarity over which of two groups involved in the incident had destroyed the victims’ properties.

The court said the police blatantly disregarded an order passed by the same court on January 21 this year, directing a clearer investigation into the case.

Additional sessions judge Praveen Singh of Karkardooma Courts, in an order dated October 16, said, “…it is evident that the entire case which already had blurred facts, has been further mired with confusion by this supplementary chargesheet”.

Police made five arrests in the case and filed a charge sheet under the penal sections pertaining to rioting, arson, and criminal conspiracy. The accused, Komal Mishra, Gaurav, Golu, Azhar, and Mohd Arif, are all currently on bail.

On January 21, as the case proceeded to framing of charges, the court questioned the investigators, noting that members of both groups were named in the charge sheet and there was no clarity over which group had damaged which specific property. The court directed police to present evidence with clarity and clear timelines.

In the latest development, the prosecution filed a supplementary charge sheet, seeking withdrawal of complaints of seven persons and discharge of two of the accused, Mohd Azhar and Arif, reasoning that separate FIRs would be lodged in relation to these seven complaints and the two accused for whom discharge had been sought.

Judge Singh observed, “…instead of conducting further investigation as directed, and to show the court how these two mobs could have been connected in sharing a common object, the prosecution, if I am bold enough to say so, has tries to circumvent that order…”

The court noted that at the same time, the supplementary charge sheet did not disclose any FIR being lodged against the two accused persons for whom discharge had been sought. Noting that the supplementary charge sheet was filed merely to defeat the previous orders of the court, the court highlighted that the three other complaints have also not been investigated by the police so far.

The court sought to bring the matter to the notice of the Delhi Police commissioner for remedial action, and sought a report on its next hearing, scheduled for November 14.