Millennium Post

Accused absconding right from the start: Court rejects anticipatory bail

Accused absconding right from the start: Court rejects anticipatory bail

New Delhi: Noting that the accused "has been absconding right from the day his name has cropped up in the matter", a Delhi Court has denied anticipatory bail to a 19-year-old man accused of alleged violence during the North-East Delhi riots that broke out early last year.

Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav in his order stated: "It is prima facie apparent that applicant was called several times by the investigating agency to join the investigation in the matter, but for reasons best known to him, he is still evading his appearance before the investigating agency and as such, the process under Section 82 CrPC came to be initiated against him".

The case pertains to an incident involving one Raman who, as per police, was allegedly attacked with swords and sticks by a mob of around 15 to 20 persons, which included the present accused Irfan, on February 25 when he had reportedly gone out to buy vegetables from a hotel near Kartar Nagar. As a result, the victim purportedly sustained severe injuries on his head, back and feet.

Special Public Prosecutor Saleem Ahmad, on behalf of Delhi Police, submitted that several efforts have been made to get the accused to join the investigation, "but in vain and he is deliberately absconding in the matter".

"…left with no option, the investigating agency was compelled to initiate coercive measures against the applicant and in this process on July 8, Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were obtained against him and now process under Section 82 CrPC has also been initiated against him vide orders of learned Magisterial Court dated September 8," the prosecutor argued.

ASJ Yadav noted that the fact that his co-accused have been granted bail by courts "will not tone down the conduct of applicant which he has displayed in the matter by absconding right from the day his name cropped in the matter".

The court further observed that it found substance in the arguments of the prosecution "that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is very much necessary to unearth the conspiracy for planning, instigating and executing riot action plan". "The applicant has been absconding in the matter right from the day his name/role cropped in the matter," ASJ Yadav said.

Advocate Jatin Sapra, on behalf of the accused, argued that his client has been falsely implicated in the matter on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to him in the matter.

Rejecting his plea for anticipatory bail, the court noted that the allegations against the accused are "grave in nature" and "the presence/appearance of applicant is very much necessary to unearth the conspiracy involved in planning, instigating and fanning the flames of communal conflagration".

Next Story
Share it