Delhi Protest Sparks Controversy: Court Remands Accused amidst Torture Claims

Violent anti-pollution protest at India's capital leads to the arrest of 23, with five protesters remanded in custody. Allegations of police brutality and connections to Maoist activities emerge during court hearings. Accused claim peaceful intent, as police call for investigation into conspiracy and alleged attacks.

Delhi's Patiala House Court has placed five individuals in two-day judicial custody due to their involvement in a violent anti-pollution protest. Another suspect was sent to a safe house pending age verification after claiming to be a minor, alongside a filed bail application. Authorities arrested 23 people for road obstruction and assaulting police officers at the India Gate protest on Sunday.

Officers revealed on Monday that FIRs have been filed at two police stations concerning the protest at C Hexagon, India Gate, which reportedly involved pepper spray used against police. Six male protesters were detained under multiple BNS sections at Kartavya Path Police Station. Concurrently, a second FIR at the Sansad Marg Police Station led to other arrests, booked under alternative sections. The detainees from Kartavya Path appeared in court, where Judicial Magistrate First Class Arindam Singh Cheema reviewed protest footage and requested a police copy.

The Delhi police advocated for a two-day remand, alleging the protesters defied public orders and used force against officials. They further claimed involvement with Maoist Madvi Hidma and noted the use of pepper spray and slogans like 'Lal Salam.' Police stressed the need for further investigation into potential Maoist connections, with the court yet to deliver a decision.

Defense counsel contended the protesters sustained injuries from alleged police custodial torture, asserting the protest's peaceful nature and denial of anti-national or Maoist activities. Claims included one accused, a lawyer, being assaulted. The court inspected the purported injury marks, with defense demanding preservation of CCTV evidence to substantiate claims of police misconduct and alleged excessive force.

(With inputs from agencies.)