Accused trying to ‘derail, delay’ trial by seeking probe status: Prosecution in Delhi riots larger conspiracy case

During earlier hearings, the counsel of the accused had argued that filing of supplementary chargesheets after hearing their defence was being done to fill loopholes in the investigation.

The counsel had further relied on various judgments to argue that the court had the power to ask the prosecution for the probe status.

Relying on judgments, Prasad said the accused has no right to know about the materials collected by the agency for investigation. He also said there was no requirement to get permission from the court to continue further investigation, as argued by the counsel of the accused.

Referring to the applications filed by the accused, Prasad said that no judgments give power to the court to entertain such applications. “Even the apex court can’t tell the agency to provide a timeline for when the investigation will be completed,” he said.

Prasad added, “The counsel of the accused have already argued extensively during the bail hearings… didn’t their defence get exposed then?” He said judicial precedents must be seen on a case-to-case basis and that a few words can make a world of difference.

Calling the applications of the accused ‘speculative’, Prasad said there were multiple remedies available to them to protect their rights which they didn’t exercise.

Prasad also argued that the prosecution had to only inform the court whether the case was ripe for arguments and not the status of the investigation. “We have placed on record case diaries to inform the court about the status of investigation,” he said.

The matter will be heard again on September 22 via video conference and Prasad will continue his arguments. A total of 17 people are accused in the case.