Delhi riots: Court says arrest after several days on being named by beat constable weak evidence

A Delhi court Monday granted bail to an accused in a case of communal violence in north east Delhi in February, saying his arrest, several days after the incident, on the basis of having being named by beat constable was prima-facie a "weak kind of evidence". The court noted that the beat constable, if he was present at the time of riots at the spot and had identified the accused as one of the rioters, then the least he should have done was to report about him at the Police Station which he did not do.   Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav granted bail to Shamim on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 20,000 with one surety of like amount, in a case related to vandalising of a public school in Dayalpur area by the rioters.

The court also granted bail to Sonu Kumar and Shyam Patel in a separate case of rioting on the grounds that there were nothing on record such as independent witnesses, CCTV  footage or any video recording to show their presence at the spot or that they were involved in rioting and chanting slogans against the other community. It said the accused who have been granted bail should not tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses in the case and should appear before the court on every date of hearing to attend the proceedings in accordance with the terms of the bail bond.

During the hearing of Shamim's bail plea, his counsel Abdul Gaffar, argued that the incident in this matter took place in Dayalpur area on February 25 but the FIR was registered on March 5 and the accused was arrested on March 16. The advocate further said that the accused has been arrested in the matter merely on the basis that he has been named by Constable Piyush in his statement on March 7.

There is no CCTV footage where Shamim can be seen rioting in the area and the  investigation in the matter was complete and he was not required for any custodial interrogation, the lawyer claimed. Special Public Prosecutor D K Bhatia, appearing for the state, opposed the bail application saying the delay in recording of FIR can be explained by the fact that the riots in the area were so rampant that there was a curfew-like situation in the area.   The situation attained normalcy only in the first week of March, whereafter the complainants started reporting the matter to the police, the public prosecutor said.

He further added that Piyush was the beat constable of the area and he knew the accused (Shamim) to be the resident of the same area. On March 7, his statement was recorded by the investigating officer in the case, wherein he named Shamim and two other persons to be part of unlawful assembly which had caused damage to the school, the counsel said. The judge said, "In my opinion, naming of Shamim by Constable Piyush in the matter is prima-facie a very weak kind of evidence. Firstly, Constable Piyush if he was present at the time of riots at the spot and had identified the applicant (Shamim) as one of the rioters then the least he should have done was to have reported about him at the Police Station which he did not do.   "Secondly, his naming the applicant in his statement dated March 7, is a very weak kind of evidence. The applicant was arrested in this matter on March 16. At least at that time, the IO should have got the judicial TIP (Test Identification Parade) of the applicant conducted in the matter. The applicant is admittedly not seen in any of the CCTV footage. His call detail records locations are not there on record." Test Identification Parade is conducted before the case is sent to court for trial, to satisfy the investigating authority that the person arrested, who was not previously known to the witness, had committed the crime.

During the bail hearing of Patel and Kumar, their counsel told the court that there was no CCTV footage of the area wherein they could be seen. The public prosecutor opposed the bail pleas saying Patel and Kumar were members of a mob which indulged in looting, arsoning,  assaulting the people in the area.

The counsel further alleged that they were actively involved in riots and chanting slogans against the other community and the beat Constable Yogesh has identified them. The court noted in the order which is similar for both the case, that there was nothing on record such as independent witnesses, CCTV  footage  or  any  video recording to show their presence at the spot or that they were involved in rioting and chanting slogans against the other community.

"In my opinion, the identification of the applicant through Constable Yogesh that too on April 17, in the absence of any material as to why Constable Yogesh did not report the matter about the presence of the applicant(s) (Kumar and Patel) in the Police Station is a weak piece of evidence," the judge said. Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and around 200 injured..

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)