N-E Delhi riots: Man gets bail in two cases, court says probe leaves much to be desired

New delhi: A Delhi court on Tuesday granted bail to a man in two cases related to the north-east Delhi riots after it noted that the investigation in the cases had left a lot to be desired and that witness statements and the version of the police were contradicting each other.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat granted the relief to Ajay on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 20,000 with one surety of like amount each in the two cases of alleged vandalism and burning of shops in Jyoti Nagar during the communal riots this February.

The court said as per the statement of witness Mohd Aslam, the accused was arrested at his instance from near Neet Nagar, Railway Line bushes, but as per the arrest memo, his place of arrest was Jyoti Nagar Police Station.

It further said the statement of Aslam referred to one Car Accessories Shop in the Ashok Nagar area which was burned, but there does not appear to be any identification by him of the shop in question in the FIR.

Strangely, there is a supplementary statement of the witness Md Aslam recorded on the same day as the main statement, that is April 18, 2020, as per which, he led the police to near Neet Nagar, Railway Line bushes and pointed out to accused persons Ajay and Gaurav Panchal as having been involved in riots on February 25, 2020 and thus, two accused persons were arrested at his instance.

The look at the arrest memo of the accused Ajay shows Aslam as one of the witnesses. However, the place of arrest is not a public place as mentioned in his supplementary statement but Police Station Jyoti Nagar itself. The investigation in the present case leaves a lot to be desired, the court said in its similar order passed in the cases. The court noted that the statement of Aslam was recorded on April 18 but the incident was of February 25. It said there was no CCTV footage against the accused in the cases.

During the hearing, advocate Arti Gupta, appearing for Ajay, said Aslam was a witness against him in several cases, which were pertaining to different locations and the accused cannot be involved in rioting at different places at the same time. The court directed him not to tamper with evidence or leave Delhi without its permission.