India News | Delhi Court Grants Bail to 12 Accused Persons in Turkman Gate Stone Pelting Case
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. The court granted bail to the accused, namely Mohammed Imran, Mohammed Adnan, Adnan, Mohammed Naved, Mohammed Ubaidullah, Amir Hamza, Mohammed Aadil, Sameer Hussain, Mohammed Athar, Mohammed Kaif, Mohammed Kashif, and Mohammed Areeb, on a bail bond of Rs 50000 and a surety bond in the same amount.
New Delhi [India], February 17 (ANI): Delhi's Tis Hazari court on Tuesday granted bail to 12 accused arrested in the Turkman Gate stone pelting case.
This case pertains to stone pelting during anti encroachment drive on the intervening night of 6 and 7 January. An FIR was lodged at Chandani Mahal police station in January.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Bhupinder Singh granted bail to 12 accused after considering the arguements by the counsel for the accused persons and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Delhi police.
The court granted bail to the accused, namely Mohammed Imran, Mohammed Adnan, Adnan, Mohammed Naved, Mohammed Ubaidullah, Amir Hamza, Mohammed Aadil, Sameer Hussain, Mohammed Athar, Mohammed Kaif, Mohammed Kashif, and Mohammed Areeb, on a bail bond of Rs 50000 and a surety bond in the same amount.
While granting bail to the accused, the court imposed several conditions on the accused persons. The court also clarified that in case of violation of any condition, the prosecution may seek cancellation of bail.
The court noted that in situations like the present one, since the incident arose during a pre-planned and sensitive demolition drive where resistance or confrontation was reasonably foreseeable, objective and technology-assisted documentation assumes importance.
Despite the incident being stated to have been video-graphed by independent cameramen and drones put to use, the identities and the acts of the persons involved are not squarely covered and leave some scope for questioning, the court noted.
The court pointed out that the use of good-quality body-worn cameras by police personnel and activation of CCTV surveillance, suitably placed at important locations during such anticipated operations, instead of relying purely upon hired cameramen and drone operators who themselves may be targeted and need to be cautious of not getting injured while capturing the incident.
"In the opinion of the Court would substantially assist in the proper identification of actual offenders, enhance transparency, and reduce future disputes regarding identity and role. Such measures serve to protect both public servants and civilians and strengthen public confidence in the investigative process," ASJ Bhupinder Singh said in the order.
ASJ Singh said that where the alleged victims are police personnel themselves and the Investigating Agency is drawn from the same establishment, the duty to ensure transparency, objectivity, and demonstrable fairness becomes even more imperative.
"In such situations, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Agency to place before the Court clear, cogent, and reliable material, supported by available technological and documentary evidence, so as to rule out even an iota of perceived bias or partiality. The credibility of the criminal justice system rests not merely on securing convictions, but on ensuring that the process is manifestly fair," ASJ Singh said.
The counsel for accsued person has raised the question over their identity and their presence during the incident.
Delhi police have invoked section 307 (Attempt to murder ) of IPC, besides other offences.
Advocate M Asad Beig had appeared for Kaif, Kasif and Areeb. It was argued that the accused persons were apprehended at around 3 AM on January 7, before the registration of FIR at 10.07 AM the next morning.
It was submitted that Kaif was at his house from 7 PM till the time he was apprehended by the police. This fact is established by the CCTV.
It was also submitted that Areeb was at Chitli kabar at the time of the incident. This place is around 1-2 kilometres from the place of the incident. They are residents of the same locality near the place of the incident and their location falls in the same area.
The counsel, on behalf of Adnan submitted that he was apprehended from his house around 1.30 AM. However, he was not visible in the CCTV footage police were relying upon.
On the other hand, the Delhi Police opposed the bail pleas. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastava submitted that the anti-enforcement drive near the masjid Faiz E Elahi was carried out in pursuance of the order of the Delhi High Court.
Before carrying out the drive, the DCP made a request for peace, and a prohibitory order was issued by the police, the police said.
Accused persons were involved in stone pelting and instigating other people. Delhi police relied upon the WhatsApp messages and videos, APP Shrivastava had argued.
Prosecution had said that Adnan's mobile had an instigating message, and he further sent the same to some groups.
"It was not a simple assault on police persons, it was an attack on the system," APP Shrivastava had argued.
It was also submitted that Kaif and Kashif were arrested on the basis of their identification in the CCTV. (ANI)
(The above story is verified and authored by ANI staff, ANI is South Asia's leading multimedia news agency with over 100 bureaus in India, South Asia and across the globe. ANI brings the latest news on Politics and Current Affairs in India & around the World, Sports, Health, Fitness, Entertainment, & News. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)