Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
HC grants bail to riots accused, questions veracity of proof collated by police. The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February.“The remit of the court is to dispense justice in accordance with the law, not to send messages to society,” the Delhi High Court has observed while rejecting the prosecution’s stance that granting bail to a man, arrested in connection with the recent northeast Delhi riots, at an early stage might send an “adverse message in the society”. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked that “Prison is primarily for punishing convicts; not for detaining undertrials in order to send any ‘message’ to society’.” Basically there are so many areas where police are silent and have no answer to say regarding these riots, such as CCTV camera and police investigation too. It further queried how the Delhi police were able to identify Mr. Khan using footage of a CCTV camera of a local school that was placed 400 meters and a 5minute walk away from the shop. The prosecution has admitted before the High Court that no CCTV footage is available of the incident itself. The public prosecutor argued that there was sufficient basis to hold Mr. Khan in judicial custody. This was contested by senior advocate Rebecca M. John, appearing for Mr. Khan, on the ground that Mr. Shanawaz has not in any manner identified or connected her client to the alleged offenses. It further queried how the Delhi police were able to identify Mr. Khan using footage of a CCTV camera of a local school that was placed 400 meters and a 5minute walk away from the shop. Justice Bhambhani, additionally, said, “When offenses are alleged to have been committed by an ‘unlawful assembly’, after concluding the investigation, the State has been able to identify and name only two persons from amongst a crowd of some 250300 persons”. The public prosecutor argued that there was sufficient basis to hold Mr. Khan in judicial custody. This was contested by senior advocate Rebecca M. John, appearing for Mr. Khan, on the ground that Mr. Shanawaz has not in any manner identified or connected her client to the alleged offenses.
86540
103860
630
114
59824