Turkman Gate violence: Delhi court reserves order for 7 accused for Monday

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Friday reserved its order on the bail plea of seven accused in the stone-pelting incident during a demolition exercise near the Faiz-e-Elahi mosque in Turkman Gate last month.

Besides deciding on the bail petition of Mohammed Kaif, Mohammed Kashif, Sameer Hussain, Mohammed Ubaidullah, Mohammed Areeb, Mohammad Naved and Mohammad Athar, the court of Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh will also hear on Monday the rest of the arguments involving the other five accused -- Adnan, Mohammed Imran, Amir Hamza, Mohammad Aadil and Mohammad Adnan.

The court heard the arguments of four accused, namely, Kaif, Kashif, Sameer and Ubaidullah on Friday.

The defence counsel for Kaif and Kashif submitted that the two brothers were apprehended around 3.15 am, not 2.30 am, as stated in the investigating officer's (IO) reply.

The DK Basu guidelines mandate the police to notify relatives of the arrestee and the legal aid organisation within eight to twelve hours of being apprehended. However, the two brothers had been apprehended for much longer before any such communication had been made, he claimed.

He also emphasised the cardinal rule of "Bail is rule, jail is exception" supported by the Arnesh Kumar guidelines which prevent arbitrary arrests in offences punishable by up to seven years of imprisonment.

"None of the offences denoted in the original FIR attract a punishment of over seven years. It is only later on that the police slapped a case of 109 BNS (attempt to murder) on all accused persons," he said.

"How can there be any question of common intention and object with the mob when my mere presence at the scene of crime is in question?" asked the counsel, as he pointed out there is video footage of Kaif being at home from 7 pm on January 6 to 3 am the next day.

The two brothers were only apprehended around 3 am because they had to rush out as tear gas filled their home, which happens to be very close to the scene of the crime, their counsel said.

The defence counsel for Sameer argued his residence was only 500-700 metres away from the scene of the crime. The counsel presented CCTV footage showing Sameer doing nothing but just standing on the street close to his house from 12.09 am to 1 am, around the time the violence broke out. He then reportedly went inside his house.

The counsel further argued that no test identification parade was conducted by the police in Sameer's case. He argued that the court should proceed with caution in the present case, considering there are only police witnesses implicating Sameer and no independent witnesses.

The defence counsel for Ubaidullah argued that he had only gone out on the night of the incident to buy medication from the local market, as he lived only two minutes away from the scene of the crime.

The counsel argued that Turkman Gate has a very vibrant nightlife after midnight with the marketplace filled with a bustling crowd, so it was not unusual for him to be there. The counsel argued that no specific role in the violence has been attributed to him.

The counsel questioned the reply filed by the IO as it states Ubaidullah was allegedly apprehended on January 10 behind Delight Cinema. He said it was untrue as Ubaidullah had gone to the police on his own volition on January 9 to inquire about his father who had initially been apprehended by the police. The counsel alleged he offered to cooperate in the investigation, following which the police apprehended him instead.

The counsel argued there was no risk of Ubaidullah tampering with the evidence as he was a student from a modest family who could not influence police witnesses.

The counsel argued there was no further need for custody as the police only required digital evidence which could be investigated without his presence. The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) pointed out that some of the medicolegal cases (MLC) are still pending in the investigation as the chief medical officer (CMO) was on leave. Thus, the presence of the accused is still required, he said.

The APP also questioned the authenticity of the video clips presented by the defence counsels which led to a heated argument. The judge intervened by offering the defence an option to submit the video footage to the court so the prosecution can verify its authenticity by the date of the next hearing.

Besides these four accused, the court had concluded hearing the arguments of three accused, namely Aathar, Naved and Areeb, on Thursday. The court has reserved the order for all seven accused for Monday.

On January 24, a separate sessions court granted bail to Ubaidullah after the first bail order of January 20 was set aside and sent back to the sessions court by the Delhi High Court.

The case pertains to violence during an anti-encroachment drive near the mosque in the Ramlila Maidan area on the intervening night of January 6 and 7. Police said rumours were spread on social media that the mosque opposite Turkman Gate was being demolished, prompting people to gather at the spot.

They said around 150-200 people hurled stones and glass bottles at the police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) personnel, injuring six police personnel, including the area's station house officer.