Updated: February 5, 2020 7:01:26 am
On December 20, 26-year old Mohsin sustained bullet injuries during an anti-CAA protest in Meerut. He was declared brought dead at a hospital the same day. His grieving family protested when they were denied the post-mortem report.
The Meerut police are now flagging the findings of the post-mortem report, linking Mohsin’s death caused by a firearm injury to the rioting that took place. In fact, police used this to oppose the bail plea of a man booked in a case of rioting and attempt to murder which was registered at the Brahmpuri police station in Meerut — five persons were killed during the protests in Meerut and families of the victims alleged excessive police action.
The FIR stated: “At around 3.30 pm, near Hapur adda, there were 400-500 people armed with sticks, country-made pistol and pistols. The police explained to the crowd that prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC have been imposed… however, with intention to kill the policemen, they started pelting stones at the police vehicles. The police arrested four people — Aasif, Samir, Mohammed Ikrar and Shehzad — from the spot. They were arrested from the Lisadi gate at 6.10 pm.”
Ikrar’s bail application was rejected on January 1 with sessions judge Gurpreet Singh Bawa recording in his order: “The prosecution has argued that police officials were injured after all the accused attacked them sticks, bricks, rods, stones and petrol bombs… the case diary shows that police officials Imran, Satendra, Udham Singh, Manoj Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Nazim Khan, Adhesh Pundir, Sudhir, Jitender Saxena, Dhanveer, Shabab, Santosh, Veerpal, Satish Chandra, Ajay Kumar, Bijendra Singh, Pinku, Raghuraj Singh, Mahaveer Singh and Raj Singh were medically examined and found to have red contusion and red abrasion. In case of Sudhir and Jitendra Saxena, the doctor recommended them for an X-ray examination. The examination reveals that there was no fracture of any bone.”
“The prosecution has also submitted that during the incident Mohsin suffered firearm injury. The post mortem report has been placed, which confirms that cause of Mohsin’s death was due to the injuries caused by the firearm… The allegations are serious in nature. Considering, the serious nature of offence and the role of the accused — and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail plea is rejected,” the order stated.
Court records show that while police submitted the case diary giving details of injuries caused to police personnel and Mohsin’s post-mortem report to indicate that the protesters used weapons, they made no mention of any weapon being seized from the arrested accused — only the recovery of bullet shells, glasses and sticks were mentioned.
“There was firing reported at Tayuwell junction. And bullet shell and other things were recovered. The forensic team was also informed. Sticks and glass pieces that were lying on the road was also seized,” the court said while recording the police submission.
While rejected the bail application, the court recorded a key defence argument based on CCTV footage, which points out that the arrests were made even before the incident took place.
“The defence has argued… that on December 20, 2019, at around 10 am, the police took him into custody. He has said that the police has falsely implicated him. It is argued that time of arrest can be verified by the CCTV installed near the house. The accused has also placed a copy of the CCTV footage of the arrest. The accused has also stated that the FIR has been registered at 3.30 pm. There are also news report that the arrest took place on December 20,” the court said.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines
- 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.