scorecardresearch
Follow Us:
Friday, June 18, 2021

Delhi HC grants bail to two men in riots case, says cops did not make daily diary entries in time

Granting bail to them in this case, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said there is no CCTV footage, video or photo to corroborate the prosecution claim.

Written by Sofi Ahsan | New Delhi |
Updated: October 14, 2020 1:23:32 pm
delhi riots, north east delhi riots, delhi riots probe, delhi city news, delhi police, delhi govt, indian express, delhi riots firIn its order, the court also put on record the alleged response of Delhi Police in handling the complaint. (Express Archive)

QUESTIONING THE Delhi Police for not making a daily diary (DD) entry or PCR call in time regarding an incident of alleged rioting in Northeast Delhi, the Delhi High Court granted bail to two accused who police claim were part of a mob instigated by former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain. The accused, Mohd Rehan alias Arshad Pradhan and, Arshad Qayyum alias Monu, in the case registered by Dayalpur police station, are alleged to have “vandalised, looted and torched the shop of the complainant as well as seven other complainants”. While Pradhan is accused in four other cases of violence, Monu is an accused in five other cases.

Granting bail to them in this case, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said there is no CCTV footage, video or photo to corroborate the prosecution claim. The court also noted that eyewitnesses constables Pawan and Vikram, who are said to have identified the accused, did not make any DD entry on February 25, when the alleged incident is said to have taken place. The FIR was registered on March 4.

“Even witnesses Irfan, Salim, Surender Singh and Pradeep Kumar Verma, who claimed to know the petitioner, did not make any complaint to the police on 25.02.2020. Even constables Pawan and Vikram, being the responsible police officials , did not make any DD entry or PCR call on the day of incident regarding the same,” the court’s order on Pradhan’s bail plea reads.

Police earlier submitted that many witnesses, whose statements have been recorded, identified the accused with other co-accused. However, the accused’s counsel argued there was a delay in registering the FIR and alleged the case has been registered only for obtaining compensation. The complainant, Zeeshan, gave a police complaint on February 28, but the FIR was registered on March 4 and the statement of the two constables identifying the accused, was recorded on March 6, they added.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Delhi News, download Indian Express App.

  • The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement