Delhi Riots: Court grants bail to two accused, casts doubt on credibility of police witnesses

Delhi riots: Court grants bail to 2 people, casts doubt on credibility of police  witnesses

A Delhi court on Tuesday granted bail to two persons in a case related to the north-east Delhi riots while casting doubts on the credibility of the two police witnesses in the matter

 The sessions Judge Vinod Yadav granted the relief to Mohd Shoaib and Shahrukh on making a bail bond of Rs 20,000 in the case of alleged vandalism and torching of a shop by a riotous mob in Gokalpuri area.

 

The court noted that the prosecution was opposing both the bail pleas on their identification by beat officers.

 

The beat officers said that their identification was of no use as they waited till April to name the accused when they had categorically seen and identified them allegedly indulging in riots on February 25, 2020.

Delhi Riots: Court Grants Bail to 2 People, Casts Doubt on Credibility of Police  Witnesses

“Being police officials, what stopped them from reporting the matter then and there in the police station or to bring the same in the knowledge of higher police officers. This cast serious doubts on the credibility of two police witnesses,” the court said in its order.

 

The CCTV footage seen by the police in the case pertained to February 24, 2020, whereas the incident took place the next day.

 

“The applicants (Shoaib and Shahrukh) were not arrested from the spot, instead their arrest has been formally affected in the case on April 15, 2020 (i.e after lapse of about 55 days of the date of incident) in Mandoli Jail,” the court said.

 

“Be that as it may, the investigation in the matter is complete; charge sheet has also been filed; trial in the matter is likely to take a long time; applicants cannot be made to incarcerate in jail for infinity merely on account of the fact that other persons who were part of the riotous mob have to be identified and arrested in the matter,” it said.

 

During the hearing, advocate Salim Malik, appearing for the accused, claimed they have been falsely implicated in the matter and were mere “bonafide bystanders”.

Share This

COMMENTS

Wordpress (0)
Disqus (0 )