A court docket right here has known as the 2020 Delhi riots the ‘paying homage to carnage in the course of the days of partition’, whereas rejecting the anticipatory bail petition of a person accused of attacking a boy in the course of the widespread violence, merely as a result of he belonged to a special group.
Fearing arrest, Siraj Ahmad Khan had moved the court docket to hunt anticipatory bail within the matter, claiming that he was being falsely implicated and had nothing to do with the alleged offence.
Dismissing his pre-arrest bail plea, Further Classes Decide Vinod Yadav famous that the allegations in opposition to him had been “grave in nature” and that his presence was essential to unearth the conspiracy concerned in planning, instigating and fanning the flames of communal conflagration.
Communal violence had damaged out in northeast Delhi in February final 12 months after clashes between citizenship regulation supporters and protesters spiralled uncontrolled leaving not less than 53 folks lifeless and round 200 injured.
It’s common information that the dreary day(s) of “February 24/25, 2020 noticed components of North-East Delhi gripped by a communal frenzy, paying homage to carnage in the course of the days of partition,” the choose remarked, in his April 29 order.
“Quickly, the riots unfold like wildfire throughout the smoke-grey skyline of Capital, engulfing new areas and snuffing out increasingly harmless lives,” he added.
Within the current matter, a younger boy particularly Raman was brutally attacked by the riotous mob on February 25 merely on the bottom that he belonged to a special group, the choose mentioned.
“From the reply filed by investigating officer within the matter, it’s clearly obvious that applicant is clearly seen/seen within the CCTV footage dated February 25, 2020 carrying a spear (bhaala) in his fingers and his two sons particularly Arman and Aman, who’re additionally accused within the prompt matter are nonetheless absconding,” the choose mentioned.
Siraj Ahmad Khan has been absconding within the matter proper from the day his function cropped up within the matter and was declared proclaimed offender by the district court docket in December, final 12 months.
The court docket additional famous that the factum that varied co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the court docket won’t water down the conduct of applicant which he displayed within the matter by absconding proper from the day when his title cropped up within the matter.
“Contemplating the info and circumstances of the case in totality and the conduct exhibited by applicant in the course of the course of investigation, I don’t discover it to be a match case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant,” the choose mentioned.
Through the course of listening to, Advocate Shadab Khan, representing Siraj, informed the court docket that the accused had been falsely implicated within the case merely on the premise of disclosure statements of co-accused individuals, no particular function has been assigned to him and has nothing to do with the alleged offence.
He argued that the officers of New Usmanpur Police Station had been threatening his members of the family to arrest him within the matter and visited his home a number of instances, that too in odd hours.
The counsel mentioned that investigation within the matter was full and the cost sheet had been filed.
He informed the court docket that Siraj wouldn’t abscond or tamper with the prosecution witnesses and was prepared to hitch additional investigation within the matter as and when known as.
Opposing the anticipatory bail, Particular Public Prosecutor Saleem Ahmed apprised the court docket that complainant Raman was brutally attacked with “swords and dandas” by the riotous mob consisting of about 15-20 hooligans on February 25, because of which he sustained extreme accidents on his head, again and ft.
“The frequent object of the accused individuals was to trigger most harm to the individuals and property(ies) of different group,” he informed the court docket, asking it to reject the anticipatory bail petition.