North-East Delhi riots: Accused says food being withheld after alleging violence by jail officials

New delhi: A Delhi court Friday sought reply of the Mandoli jail authorities on whether an accused in a Delhi riots case, who alleged that he was badly beaten by the prison officials, can be transferred to another prison.

Tanveer Malik, arrested in the case related to the communal violence in Dayalpur area in February this year, alleged that the incident happened on December 8 and he was not taken to the hospital. It was alleged that the Head Warden, Wardens along with their associates had beaten the accused as the Assistant Superintendent watched.

Tanveer alleged his medico-legal case was prepared in the OPD and he was not taken to the hospital for medical examination. He complained of severe pain and being unable to eat meals even.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dinesh Kumar on Friday directed the Jail Superintendent to complete the inquiry in the matter as soon as possible after the prison authorities sought more time.

The jail authorities in their reply said Tanveer was taken to a hospital and has been given treatment from a hospital. They sought more time to complete the inquiry on the allegations.

During the hearing, Tanveer further alleged that he has not been given any food since yesterday and the jail officials have been threatening him to enter into a compromise otherwise they would make his life difficult inside the prison.

The court directed the Jail Superintendent to conduct an inquiry on the fresh allegations also. "Copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent concerned with direction to complete the inquiry as soon as possible and file the report before the court. He shall also file a reply whether the accused can be transferred to some other jail in view of his allegations," it said in its order.

The court put up the matter for further hearing on December 18. It had earlier directed the Jail Superintendent to get Tanveer medically examined from a government hospital before filing the report. The court in its earlier order had noted the names of the officials against whom allegations have been made by the accused.