Millennium Post

No bias in police investigation; Delhi HC says petitioners participated in the mob

No bias in police investigation; Delhi HC says petitioners participated in the mob

New delhi: Observing that no biasness and unfairness is seen in the case involving the accused, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to intervene in a plea moved by a man alleging "mala fide" probe by the Delhi police into the February riots and seeking transfer of his case to an independent agency out of the north-east district.

The petition moved by one Shadab Alam, represented by Advocate Tara Narula, while seeking a reinvestigation into a case of rioting involving him and his co-worker, had also alleged that material evidence in the chargesheet had been suppressed, hence making the case "deeply flawed". The plea had also sought departmental action against police officials posted at the Dayalpur Police Station.

A single-judge bench of Justice Suresh Kait, in his order, noted that: "…in the chargesheet there are evidence of witnesses which corroborate that the petitioners had participated in the mob".

"…in the present case such type of biasness, unfairness is not seen apparently," the order read, adding, "Be that as it may, if at the time of arguments on charge or during, the defence counsel is able to establish before the trial court that further investigation is required, the said Court is fully empowered to direct the investigation agency to further investigate".

Advocate Narula had told the court that the petitioners were picked up from a medical shop 'Samrat Medical Store' on February 24 and when the applications were moved by her regarding their "illegal detention" they were allegedly shown to have been arrested on February 28. She also alleged that applications to preserve the CCTV footage of the medical shop and the Dayalpur Police Station as also the call detail records of the accused persons were declined. The petitioners were allegedly subjected to "inhumane treatment including regular beatings" during their detention, she had argued.

The petitioners' employer's statement where he stated that "the accused persons were all along with him in the shop on February 24 and never took part in the riots" was not taken on record by police, she had claimed.

Referring to a CCTV footage shown to the court by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, the court stated that "the same does not establish that the petitioners were detained on February 24".

Justice Kait observed, "The grievance of the petitioners is that some CCTV footage and CDR have not been placed on record by the investigation agency…if they really feel that police have concealed some evidence and did not place on record, the petitioners are at liberty to move an application before the Trial Court to seek certain directions and on filing such application, the trial court is directed to decide the same as per law". The court further said that regarding the petitioner's grievance with any police officer displaying "biasness", he is at liberty to take action as per law.

Next Story
Share it