Read Time: 07 minutes

The Delhi High Court today continued hearing bail pleas of 11 accused in the Delhi Riots case this week.

The batch of pleas was being heard by the single Judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad.

Adv Rebecca John appeared for accused Shadab Ahmed submitted that according to prosecution there was no video footage in Shadab’s case. The CDR location showed him on the spot.

John argued that the Prosecution had submitted  that the mere fact that Shadab was not caught on camera did  not mean he was not part of the mob. They also said that there was deletion of images and whatsapp messages from his phone.

John however relying on one Najmul Hassan’s statement submitted  “If I was to deconstruct his statements what does he say that people from different areas come together to protest. There is nothing to show that I had ignited the protest. He mentions that the provocation was from the police. It was not a planned attack it was in response to the police provocation.”

John questioning the evidence that the police had against Shadab referred to the statement of another witness Tauqeer and submitted “what is the role they’ve attributed to me that I served food, was part of sher-o-shayari? I have not been named as a person who was responsible for the violence that took place at Wazirabad. I am therefore stating what is the ocular evidence you have against me?’

John then pointed out that the prosecution had tried to manipulate Najmul Hussain who was the brother of one of the co accused.

“This is the kind of manipulation that is being done by the prosecution. If there is no kind of judicial notice of this kind of manipulation, nobody is safe in this country. It is my respectful submission that all I can see is manipulation. They should be consistent, we can waiver but if they waiver the system will collapse”, submitted John.

On the prosecutions argument that bail ought not to be granted in case of heinous crimes, John relied on the case Prabhakar Tiwari vs State of UP where the deceased was shot by a firearm and subsequently died. The Court had observed that “offences alleged no doubt are serious and many cases are oending against the accused however that does not mean the accused cannot be released on bail.”

Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir appearing for another accused Mohd Arif argued that there was variance between the video footage and the statements of the two constables in the case. Moreover Arif could not be identified since he was behind a sea of people.

Mir argued that Arif was a simple cloth seller whose daughter was battling with a severe disease and his family needed him.

The Court will continue hearing the case on August 9, 2021.

 

Case Title: Batch of Petitions

 

Also Read: "Can't a Tailor be a Terrorist?" Argues ASG SV Raju before Delhi HC opposing bail pleas of 11 accused in Delhi Riots case

Also Read: In case of offence where sentence is for life, bail is not to be granted," ASG Raju argues before Delhi HC opposing bail of 11 accused in Delhi Riots Case(s)

Also Read: [Delhi Riots] " If There is Difficulty To identify A Person in Video, Pendulum swings Towards Grant of Bail": Delhi High Court while hearing Bail Plea of Mohd Arif