Three get bail in northeast Delhi riots cases, one denied relief

New Delhi:

New Delhi:

HT Image

A Delhi court on Monday granted bail to three accused in different northeast Delhi riots’ cases, stating that there was no evidence on record and mere identification by constables is “weak evidence”.

The court also denied bail to one person, observing that there is enough material on record to show that he had actively participated in the arson in which a book shop was completely charred.

Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav ordered the release of Abdul Khaliq, an accused in a case related to the riots in Dayalpur, and Shyam Patel and Sonu Kumar in connection to the violence in Bhajanpura.

Appearing for Khaliq, his counsel said his client was not named in the FIR and there was no CCTV footage where he can be seen. He said Khaliq was arrested just on the basis of being named by one constable, Piyush.

Patel and Kumar’s lawyer Saroj Kumar Jha told the court that both the applicants were named in 10 cases and granted bail in eight. He said there was no CCTV footage in which they can be spotted.

Appearing for police, the Special Public Prosecutor told the court that they had been identified by a constable named Yogesh and had been involved in the riots.

Opposing the bail of Khaliq, the police said Piyush was the beat constable of the area and knew the accused as a resident of the same locality. The SPP said on March 7, his statement was recorded by the IO in the matter where he had named the accused and two other persons to be part of unlawful assembly.

The court, however, found that in both the cases, mere naming of the accused by the constables was “weak evidence”. Granting bail to Khaliq, the court said, “ …naming of Khaliq by constable Piyush in the matter is prima-facie, a very weak kind of evidence”.

The court said if Piyush was present at the spot and identified the accused (Khaliq) as one of the rioters, then he should have reported to the nearest police station, which he did not do.

He ordered the release of Patel and Kumar, saying there is nothing on record such as independent witnesses, CCTV footage or any video recording to show the presence of the accused at the spot or that they were involved in rioting and chanting slogans against the other community.

The court said identification by constable Yogesh, in absence of reason on why he did not report the matter to the police station when he saw the accused, is a weak piece of evidence.

The same judge denied bail to Mohammad Furqan after observing that there was enough material on record to show that he had actively participated in the riots. The court said his presence has been duly seen in CCTV footage and his identification by one constable Pawan at this stage cannot be considered as weak evidence.

Furqan was arrested for rioting and setting a book store on fire in Dayalpur. Appearing for Furqan, his counsel had contended that nothing had been recovered from his client and that he had clean antecedents. He said there was a delay of 10 days in the recording of FIR in the matter.

The court said it is a matter of record that more than 10,000 PCR calls were received in the Dayalpur police station on the date of the incident and it was very difficult for police to revert or respond to all callers.

“The atmosphere in or around the area was frightening and as such the complainant did not come forward to report the matter to the police. There is a clear explanation of the delay in recording the FIR,” the court said.