तुर्कमान गेट हिंसा: 8 आरोपियों की जमानत पर फैसला सुरक्षित, 12 फरवरी को होगा ऐलान – turkman gate violence delhi court reserves order bail plea opnm2
In the case of violence during anti-encroachment action in Turkman Gate area of Delhi, a court has reserved the decision on the bail petitions of eight accused for February 12. This case is related to the incident of stone pelting and vandalism that took place near Faiz-e-Ilahi Mosque last month. Many policemen were injured in this.
The court of Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh has reserved its decision on the bail petitions of eight accused. These include Mohammad Adnan, Mohammad Kaif, Mohammad Kashif, Sameer Hussain, Mohammad Ubaidullah, Mohammad Areeb, Mohammad Naved and Mohammad Athar. The court said that arguments related to four other accused will be heard on Thursday.
The other four Mohammed accused in this case are Adnan, Imran, Aamir Hamza and Mohammed Adil. On Monday, the court especially heard the arguments put forward by accused Mohammad Adnan, in which questions were raised on the process of his arrest and the police action. Adnan’s lawyer argued that there was no allegation of attempt to murder in the initial FIR.
He said that all the sections mentioned in the initial FIR were bailable. There was a provision for punishment of less than seven years. In such a situation, Arnesh Kumar guidelines should be implemented. The accused should be granted bail. The defense also claimed that there is no concrete evidence against Mohammad Adnan for his involvement in violence. There was no female policeman present at the time of arrest.
They allege that Mohammad Adnan’s mother and sister were locked in a room of the house. The arrest warrant was signed by an acquaintance rather than a family member. The lawyer also alleged violence in police custody. Although no external injuries were found on Adnan’s body, he had complained of physical pain.
In the case of co-accused Mohammad Imran, the magistrate had ordered a new MLC, because such injuries were found on his body which were not recorded earlier. The defense also said that CCTV cameras were not present in the police sub-unit where the accused were kept, hence there was no video record of the violence that took place during custody.
Apart from this, lawyers were not given timely information about the addition of Section 109 of the Indian Judicial Code, due to which they were forced to file the petition in the wrong forum. Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava countered these claims and said that the accused were informed about the new section through the arrest memo.
The defense, while demanding bail on the basis of equality, also said that a sessions court has already granted bail to co-accused Ubedullah. This incident took place on the intervening night of January 6 and 7, when an anti-encroachment campaign was being conducted near the mosque in Ramlila Maidan area. Rumors were spread on social media that the mosque was being demolished.
—- End —-
