Rejecting the bail plea of eight accused, the court said that they are well-known criminals of the area and hence no witnesses will come forward.
Denying bail to eight people accused in connection with the communal violence that broke out in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area last month, a Rohini court on Sunday came down heavily on Delhi Police for its “utter failure” in stopping a Hanuman Jayanti procession held without permission in the area.
It said that the issue “seems to have been simply brushed aside” by the senior police officers. The police personnel “accompanied the illegal procession” and their complicity, “if any”, needs to be investigated, the court said.
“The liability on the part of the concerned officials needs to be fixed so that in future no such incident takes place and the police is not complacent in preventing the illegal activities,” said Additional Sessions Judge Gagandeep Singh in an order.
Rejecting the bail plea of eight accused on grounds that their release may affect witnesses, the court said that they are well-known criminals of the area and hence no witnesses will come forward.
The court in the order noted the sequence of events which took place on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanti on April 16 in the area and the role of the local administration in preventing the untoward incident and maintaining the law and order situation needs to be seen.
“It is fairly admitted on behalf of the state that the last procession, which was passing through during which the unfortunate riots took place, was illegal having no prior permission from (the) police,” said the judge.
The court said that the FIR itself shows that the local staff of the Jahangirpuri police station, led by inspector Rajiv Ranjan as well as other officials, were “accompanying the said illegal procession” on its route instead of stopping it.
The court made the observations in an order dismissing the bail applications of seven accused – Imteyaz, Noor Alam, Sheikh Hamid, Ahmad Ali, Sheikh Hamid, S.K. Sahahada, Sheikh Zahir and Ahir. The accused argued that they had been falsely implicated in the case and were not even present at the spot on the date of the incident.
While dismissing the bail pleas of the accused, the judge said that the material investigation in the present case is still underway and several offenders are yet to be apprehended.