NEW DELHI: After a Delhi court questioned the police over a wrongly-clubbed FIR based on multiple complaints of alleged rioting during the 2020 communal violence, the latter has decided to segregate and file separate charge sheets in the cases involved.
Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav asked the police why five incidents of alleged rioting, theft and arson which took place at three different blocks – C, D, and E of Delhi’s Bhajanpura area on different dates were clubbed in a single FIR and charge sheet.
“Whether these complaints of different dates could have been clubbed by the investigating agency in one FIR is a question which will be seen during the course of the trial,” the judge said.
In a status report submitted on September 10, the Bhajanpura SHO replied that complaints of rioting that took place in block D and E blocks will be investigated separately and separate charge sheets will be filed.
In the other two complaints at C block, the court has agreed to consider the charge sheet already submitted in the case.
In this case, two accused — Neeraj and Manish — were arrested based on the complaints filed by the shopkeepers who alleged that their shops were allegedly looted and vandalized by the riotous mob.
While framing the charges, the session’s judge revoked the arson charges against the accused, noting that the shopkeepers did not allege the commission of offence and that there is no CCTV footage.
“A fine-tooth-comb analysis of the complaints and statements reveals that none of them has identified the accused persons to be part of the riotous mob which had vandalized their shops,” said ASJ Yadav.
He noted that there were no allegations by the complaints regarding the commission of arson in their shops.
Stay on costs imposed on police extended
The Delhi High Court on Monday extended the stay on Rs 25,000 costs imposed on the police by a trial court which had called the investigation in a case related to north-east Delhi riots “callous and farcical”.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was informed by the Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing Delhi Police, that they have not received the reply of complainant Mohammad Nasir in the matter.
As advocate Jatin Bhatt, appearing for Nasir, said he has filed the reply on Monday, the court said it was not on record and granted him a week’s time to bring it on record.
The court listed the matter for further hearing on November 15 and said ‘interim orders to continue’.
The court refused to interfere with the trial court strictures against police investigation, saying it cannot expunge the remarks without a hearing.