Firecrackers were manufactured in Bawana factory,police tells court
Delhi police submitted in the court that Manoj Jain – the person who took the building on rent -- with another person, Lalit Goyal, was running the factory where “firecrackers were being manufactured”.delhi Updated: Jan 24, 2018 23:56 IST
Firecrackers were being manufactured in the Bawana factory where 17 people were killed in a massive blaze last Saturday, police told a city court on Wednesday.
Delhi police submitted in the court that Manoj Jain – the person who took the building on rent -- with another person, Lalit Goyal, was running the factory where “firecrackers were being manufactured”.
“In the investigation conducted to date, the accused has disclosed the name of Lalit Goyal. He further stated that he used to procure the raw material, including combustible and explosive substances, from Haridwar, UP and from other places. He was not having any licence to use such material,” the officer submitted before the court.
Following this, the court sent Jain to five-day police custody. Metropolitan Magistrate Jitendra Pratap Singh directed that Jain be produced before the court on January 29.
“Cold firecrackers used during Holi were being manufactured and packaged in the Bawana factory. Investigation is underway. The co-accused, Lalit Goyal, is absconding,” said an official privy to the matter. Cold fireworks are generally used indoors or on-stage for colour and light.
The police had sought five-day police custody to arrest the co-accused and to verify the source and suppliers of the material being used in the factory.
“It is further prayed that the custody is required to verify whether the accused was running other such illegal enterprises. It is further sought to recover relevant record and to gather further evidence in the case and for sustained interrogation of the accused,” the police told the court.
Advocate Pradeep Rana, appearing for Manoj Jain, said he is willing to cooperate in the investigation.
The court allowed an application requesting for the counsel’s presence during police interrogation. The court told the investigating agency that whenever Jain seeks the presence of the counsel, he should be provided access even during police interrogation.
Earlier, the court had given three days of police custody. But the investigating officer said that on account of the security arrangements due to Republic Day, it would be difficult to produce him on January 27.
The court then granted the police five-day custody of the suspect.
But the court said if the investigating officer feels that Jain’s custody is not required before the five-day period ends, he should produce the suspect before the court at the ‘first opportunity.’”.