1984 anti-Sikh riots case: No reason given by SIT on plea to cancel bail, says Sajjan Kumar

In July, 2022 the HC had stayed the bail order granted to Kumar after the Centre argued that Kumar was involved in a heinous offence and since some important witnesses are to be examined, releasing Kumar may hamper the evidence. As Kumar’s counsel urged the HC to vacate the stay, the HC said that the interim order staying the bail order shall continue till the next date of hearing, listing the matter on July 18.

A case was registered against Kumar in December 1991 at Saraswati Vihar Police station. Earlier the Delhi police riot cell was investigating the case which later closed in 1994. In 2015, a three-member Special Investigation Team, constituted by the central government to reinvestigate the cases of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, decided to reopen the case. The mandate for the SIT was to reinvestigate “serious criminal cases which were filed in Delhi in connection with 1984 riots which have since been closed”.

The SIT in its plea contends that it examined the complainant of the 1991 FIR who said that it was Kumar who formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons for the purpose of committing criminal acts including rioting, arson and murder. The complainant who had also filed an affidavit before Justice Ranganath Misra commission of inquiry had clearly mentioned Kumar’s name as the person who instigated the mob, the plea claims.

SIT’s plea contends that while granting bail to Kumar the Additional Sessions Judge MK Nagpal “did not consider the reply filed by the SIT, and did not appreciate the relevant facts and established position of law”. The SIT claims that the trial court “wrongly observed” that there is no threat to victims when the victim–wife of the deceased, has specifically stated that Kumar is an influential person and she apprehends “threat in future if the case is pursued”. The SIT further claims that in the bail order the trial court has given a “finding on the merits of the case” when at the time of bail only a “prima facie case has to be seen and no evaluation of evidence is to be done”.